Full text of "The Acts of the apostles"

Off. T. 8T4NNAGE BOYLE
TRINITY COLLEGE.

TORONTO

CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY

VOL. XXVII
HARNACK S THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Crown TTbeolooical

WORKS ALREADY PUBLISHED

Vol. I. BABEL AND BIBLE. By Dr. FRIEDRICH DELITZSCH. js.

Vol. II. THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST. An Historical
and Critical Essay. By PAUL LOBSTEIN. 35.

Vol. III. MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT. Confessions of a
Preacher. By R. WIMMER. 35. 6d.

Vol. IV. LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY. Its Origin, Nature, and
Mission. By JEAN REVILLE. 45.

Vol. V. WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? By ADOLF HARNACK. js.

Vol. VI. FAITH AND MORALS. By W. HERRMANN. 5*.

Vol. VII. EARLY HEBREW STORY. By JOHN P. PETERS, js.

Vol. VIII. BIRLE PROBLEMS AND THE NEW MATERIAL
FOR THEIR SOLUTION. By Prof. T. K. CHEYNH. 55.

Vol. IX. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT AND ITS
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION, AND RFLIGION AND
MODERN CULTURE. By late AUGUSTS SABATIER. 45. 6d.

Vol. X. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF CHRIST.
By OTTO PFLEIDERER. 35. 6d.

Vol. XI. THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Eleven Essays by
V.irious Writers. 6s.

Vol. XII. THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION : An Anthropo
logical Study. By L. R. FARNELL. 55.

Vol. XIII. THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By
BARON HERMANN VON SODEN, D.D. 55.

Vol. XIV. JESUS. By W. BOUSSET. 4$.

Vol. XV. THE COMMUNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WITH
GOD. By W. HERRMANN. 53.

Vol. XVI. HEBREW RELIGION. By W. E. ADDIS. 55.

Vol. XVII. NATURALISM AND RELIGION. By RUDOLF
OTTO. 6s.

Vol. XVIII. ESSAYS ON THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. By Dr.
ADOLF HARNACK and Dr. HERRMANN. 45. 6d.

Vol. XIX. THE RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By KARL MARTI. 48. 6d.

Vol. XX. LUKE THE PHYSICIAN. Being Volume One of
Dr. Adolf Harnack s New Testament Studies. 6s.

Vol. XXL THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE RE
SURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. By Prof. KIRSOPP
LAKE. 55.

Vol. XXII. THE APOLOGETIC OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Rev. E. F. SCOTT. 55.

Vol. XXIII. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. Being Volume two
of Dr. Adolf Harnack s New Testament Studies. 6s.

Vol. XXIV. ANGLICAN LIBERALISM. By TWELVE CHURCH
MEN. 55.

Vol. XXV. THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION. By Dr. R. SEEBERG. 55.

Vol. XXVI. THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT. By Prof. RUDOLF

EUCKEN. 58.

Descriptive Prospectus on Application.

Bern Cfstamcnt ^tunics
III

THE ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES

ADOLF HARNACK

PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN

TRANSLATED BY

THE REV. J. R. WILKINSON, M.A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE,
OXFORD ; AND RECTOR OF W1NFORD

WILLIAMS & NORGATE

14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON

NEW YORK : G. P. PUTNAM S SONS
1909

Printed by BALLANTYNE &&amp;gt; Co. LIMITED
Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London

DEDICATED TO

THE SENATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
GLASGOW

AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE AUTHORS GRATITUDE

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF LAWS

CONFERRED UPON HIM

PREFACE

THE two volumes of New Testament studies by
Professor Harnack, which have already appeared in
this series, may be said without exaggeration to have
marked an epoch in New Testament research. The
third volume, " The Acts of the Apostles," now
presented in English form, is if anything more
remarkable than its predecessors. In it Professor
Harnack develops the position which he has estab
lished in " Luke the Physician," and subjects the
Acts of the Apostles to a most searching investiga
tion from almost all possible points of view. A very
pleasing feature of this series of studies is the high
esteem in which the author holds the researches of dis
tinguished English scholars, such as Sir John Hawkins,
Dr. Plummer, and Dr. Hobart. To those who, like
the translator, have long felt that from the standpoint
of scientific historical criticism it was inconceivable
that the author of the Lukan writings could have
been a companion of St. Paul, the conclusions of the

great German scholar have come with somewhat of a

viii PREFACE

shock. And yet the view or rather the peculiar
psychological solution of the problem of these writings
now propounded by Dr. Harnack, has had at least
one champion among English scholars of the so-called
critical school. The translator calls to mind a con
troversy many years ago at a meeting of the
" C.C.C." mystic signs known to the initiated
when the Rev. Dr. Hastings Rashdall, Fellow and
Tutor of New College, Oxford, argued almost in the
words of Dr. Harnack that the difficult account of
Acts ii. could perfectly well have been written by a
companion of St. Paul i.e. by one who knew the
real nature of the phenomenon of " Speaking with
Tongues."" The translator then denounced such a
position as unscientific ; he now assures Dr. Rashdall
of his reluctant yet complete conversion, and begs to
dedicate to him his own work in rendering these
notable researches accessible to the English reader.

CONTENTS

PAN

INTRODUCTION : The Characteristics of the Acts . . . xiii

CHAPTER I
CHRONOLOGICAL DATA

I. The references to contemporary history .... 3

II. Exact statements of years, months, and days . . 6

III. References to Festivals 19

IV. Indefinite dates 22

Appendix I. The consistency of the form in which

chronological statements are given in the Acts . 31
Appendix II. Chronological information to be gained

from the Acts 34

Appendix III. The chronological note at the end of the

Acts 38

Appendix IV. Special readings of a chronological

character in the so-called /3-recension ... 44

CHAPTER II
LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES . . 49

I. Terms of more general significance: "Eflw, p. 49;
Ao6t, p. 50 ; "EXXijpes and EXX^wraf, p. 51 ; E/fyatot,
p. 52 ; lovSaioi, p. 53 ; I&lt;rpaj\ and IffparjKiTai, p.
55 ; Bdp)3o/)o, p. 55 ; 01 KaroiKovvrf s, p. 55 ; Trj,
Xwpa, H Te/&gt;/xw/&gt;oj, II6X&lt;r, Ku&gt;/n;, Ti^ror, p. 56;

*, p. 64.

CONTENTS

PAOK

II. Terms of more special significance : (The list of
nations in chapters ii. 5, 9-11 and vi. 9, p. 65 ;
Palestine [Galilee, Judaea, the Philistian cities,
Samaria] and Phoenicia, Ifpoff&\vna and IepowaXTj/x,
p. 71 ; Syria and Cilicia, p. 87 ; Cyprus, Pamphylia,
Pisidia, and Lycaonia, p. 92; Phrygia and Galatia
[Myria, Bithynia, Pontus], p. 97 ; Asia, Mace
donia, and Achaia, p. 102 ; Italy, p. 110 ; Houses,
p. 109 ; Special readings of a geographical and
topographical character in the so-called /3-recen-
sion, p. 112.)

CHAPTER III
THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 117

CHAPTER IV
MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT (THE ASCENSION) 133

CHAPTER V
THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 162

The analysis of the second half of the book into the
we-sections and the remaining elements, and of the
first half into three bodies of narratives and the
account of the conversion of St. Paul Pentecost.

CHAPTER VI
INSTANCES OF INACCURACY- AND OF DISCREPANCY . . 203

Written or oral sources? Concluding remarks concern
ing the value of the sources and of St. Luke as a
writer.

Instances of inaccuracy and discrepancy in the we-sec
tions, p. 203 ; elsewhere in the second half of the
book, p. 205 ; in chapter i. and the source B (chaps.
ii. v. 17-42), p. 211; in the source A (Hi. 1-v. 16, viii.

CONTENTS xi

PACK

5-40, ix. 31-xi. 18, xii. 1-23), p. 214. In the Jerusa
lem- Antiochean source (vi. 1-viii. 4, xi. 19-30, xii.
25 [xiii. l]-xv. 35), p. 219 ; in chap. ix. i-30, p. 224.
Instances of consistent inaccuracy and discre
pancy, p. 225. Written or Oral sources ? Value :
The we-sections, p. 231. The second half of the
book, excluding the we-sections, p. 232. The
source B, p. 238. The source A, p. 241. The
Jerusalem-Antiochean source, p. 245. The Decree
of the council of Jerusalem, p. 248.

EXCURSUS I. Survey of the narratives of St. Luke concern
ing the Primitive Community and the earlier history
of St. Paul (Acts i.-xir.), which are confirmed hy the
Pauline Epistles 264

EXCURSUS II. On the plan of the Gospel of St. Luke and

the Acts 275

EXCURSUS III. St. Luke and Christian joy .... 277

EXCURSUS IV. St. Luke and the development of Chris
tianity from the religion of a Jewish sect to a universal
religion 281

EXCURSUS V. The date of the Acts 290

CONCLUSION 298

INTRODUCTION

THE magnitude and difficulty of the task which St.
Luke set himself in his Acts of the Apostles," and
the ability and skill with which he has mastered this
task, cannot be easily overrated. In order to esti
mate what he has performed, let us transport our
selves into the situation in which he composed his
work. It was the time of the Flavian Caesars, and
he a physician probably already well stricken in
years after many long travels, which had led him
as far as Jerusalem in the East and Rome in the
West, had now taken up his abode either in Ephesus
or in Achaia, or in some other province lying on the
shores of the Grecian Sea. The Christian movement
had been in progress in these lands for at least thirty
to forty years. He himself had taken an active part
in its propagation, and had stood in personal rela
tions not only with St. Paul, but also with dis
tinguished members of the Primitive Community.
He had received the details of the Gospel history
from those who could be described as " from the
beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word."
An overwhelming flood of impressions stormed in
upon the Hellenic mind of the writer overwhelm
ing where these concentrated themselves into one
single impression, overwhelming in their variety and

xili

xiv INTRODUCTION

paradox. A sacred volume of inexhaustible content
the portrait of Jesus Christ in a concordia discors
of testimony, of narrative, and of speculation the
apostles the churches that multitude of Spirit-
gifted ones experiencing and working Signs and
Wonders ! Above this surging sea, whose waves are
breaking in ever fresh creations in the sphere of
thought and action, the heavens are dark with the
storm-cloud of the approaching End and yet at
the same time the most strenuous efforts are made
after an accommodation with the world as it is, and
towards transformation of its life by the new spirit.
Lastly, everywhere conflict and controversy : the Jew
and the Greek Paul and the rest of the apostles
knowledge and the absolute contempt of know
ledge the spirit and the letter tradition and pro
phecy speculation opposed to speculation facts
and their commentaries life and asceticism. In
such a situation it was that St. Luke seized his
pen and undertook not only to write history, to
recount how all that he saw around him had come
to pass, but also to unite this history as a second
part with the Gospel story.

The first part of his intention was a venture which
cannot be easily interpreted from a psychological
point of view, unless the writer himself had been in
direct and personal touch with the facts which he
wished to describe. Those who regard the author
simply as an editor of sources only transfer the
difficulty of the problem to the shoulders of some
early unknown writer, and those who bring him
down into a later generation mistake the character

INTRODUCTION xv

of the book, in that they cannot see the wood for
the trees. Direct touch with the recorded facts
this alone explains such a history as lies before us
in the " Acts of the Apostles." Even so the per
formance is quite astounding. What religious move
ment of that epoch, whether of ancient origin or
newly born, produced, or even aimed at producing,
anything similar ? Did the religion of Mithras or
of Magna Mater ? Had not the author approached
the task as to a certain extent a biographer of
St. Paul, qualified thereto by personal knowledge of
the apostle ; had he not possessed in this knowledge
a guiding principle of his work, how is it even con
ceivable that he could have mastered, or even thought
of mastering, the enormous bulk of unwieldy, chaotic
material that lay before him ? Even so he was com
pelled to bring to bear upon his task an unusual
measure of that glorious gift the birthright of the
genuine Hellene the sense for form and arrange
ment, and the art of right selection.

But the second part of his intention is even more
astounding. The author, St. Luke, has actually ap
pended this history of his as a continuation to the
" Gospel-book " created by St. Mark and modified by
himself. 1 He therewith elevated his subject to the

1 It follows from this a thing, indeed, probable in itself that
this kind of narrative of the history of our Lord was not yet
formally regarded as " sacred." If I am right, " St. Matthew,"
who does not mention himself, was the first to make the book of the
Gospel a book of the Church, and accordingly quasi sacred. From
St. Matthew this sacred character was imparted also to St. Mark and
St. Luke. " St. Matthew " by his first words, " B/0\oj ytvfoeut
X/HOTOV," has connected his work with the Old Testament,

xvi INTRODUCTION

loftiest heights imaginable, and with it his own work
to the same high level. His daring is equally great
regarded either from an objective or a subjective
point of view. To the sacred history of Jesus was
now added a second part of this history, and side by
side with the Gospel narrative style, which already
possessed a fixed type, there was now established the
type of this new history ! Here the selection of
material was entirely the work of St. Luke, equally
so the type of narrative. For the latter the Gospel
type could scarcely in any point serve as a model ;
it was necessarily an entirely fresh creation, and
though many have imitated it, their scope has been
always more limited, 1 nor have their attempts been
either happy or successful.

Thus the new religion, even in its very beginnings,
entered into the possession of a written history, and
this written not by a Jewish Christian or a native
of Palestine, but by a Greek. This was a fact of
immeasurable significance ! It was the Hellene, scarcely
yet won to the new religion, who presented Christianity
with a history, and so compelled her adherents to
follow him in his selection out of the chaotic mass of

and the character of his narrative he always has the Christian
community in view, and his style is liturgical his anonymity and
his solemn conclusion show that he wished to create a book for
liturgical use. St. Luke has written under his own name and for
private use. Acts i. 1 shows that something has fallen out before
St. Luke i. 1 namely, the address. It seems that the beginning
of St. Mark has also suffered from correction. This gospel also
was not originally a liturgical book.

1 I mean the series of so-called apocryphal Acts, which begins
with the Acta Pauli; though perhaps we should say with the
Kerygma Petri.

INTRODUCTION xvii

traditional material, and to regard as their history
that which he offered them. In the whole under
taking and in a hundred of its details he might have
made shipwreck, and his book might have sunk into
oblivion either without effect or condemned by
Christendom. But here it remains. Perhaps only
faute de mwux? Certainly not! Of course it does
not satisfy all the requirements of later days, 1 but
it abides because that which is excellent is certain to
succeed. 2

History can be narrated in two ways : one can
gather together a heap of more or less important
and characteristic stories Memorabilia ; or one can
concentrate everything round a central point of in
terest. This central point can be a personality or an

1 Even in early days those who gave the book the title of ITpciett
Tuif AroffT6\wv wished to see in the book a work wherein informa
tion was preserved concerning the acts and the testimony of all
the twelve Apostles ; for there was need of such a work as a proof
of the evangelic truth in opposition to heresy. But the book does
not satisfy this requirement, or only partially so. The above title,
which is generally received, and was already known to Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the author of the Mura-
torion Fragment, cannot be original, and yet cannot have been
given much later than A.D. 150. The title Hpdl-tis is only an
abbreviation. The name " Commentarius Lucae," which Tertullian
uses once (De Jejun. 10), though not a bad one, is a free invention
of Tertullian himself.

3 In Gentile communities the book, so far as we know, was
rejected only by the Marcionites (probably also by some Gnostic
sects), and by the problematical Severians (Euseb., " Hist. Eccl.,"
iv. 29 : these are probably not to be reckoned among Gentile
Christians, seeing that they rejected 6t. Paul). In spite of Ter
tullian (Adv. Marc., v. 2, 3, and De Praescr., 22 /) we cannot be
quite certain whether the book came into the hands of Marcion ;
there are good reasons both for and against.

xviii INTRODUCTION

idea, and the idea can be pictured as fixed or as in
development. What has St. Luke done? He dis
dainfully refuses to be satisfied with a collection ot
stories like the fabricators of Acts of the Apostles
who came after him. Neither has he set up a single
personality as his central point, though his relations
with St. Paul and his veneration for that apostle
must well have suggested to him this procedure. On
the contrary, he recognised with sure tact that, if
he wished to place this new history side by side with
the Gospel history as its second part, no single per
sonality ought to stand in the centre of interest ; for
at once the unique character of the Master Jesus
Christ would be threatened and blurred. It followed
that he must group his material round an idea. If,
however, this work was to be regarded as a continua
tion of the first work, this idea must be derived from
the active ministry of Jesus Himself. The power of
the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles manifested in history
this theme alone seemed to satisfy all requirements.
Everything worthy of memory in the history of the
primitive communities could without constraint be
ranged under this theme ; above all, it would supply
an excellent criterion of selection, and at the same
time would connect the whole subject-matter most
firmly with the first part, with the history of the
words and actions of Jesus. A genuine inspiration of
genius ! which loses nothing of its excellence in that
it seems to us now so very natural.

The power of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles
manifested in history here the term Apostle " is
not yet used by St. Luke with an absolutely narrow

INTRODUCTION xix

connotation. The facts themselves, indeed, protested
against such a restriction. Of the great majority of
the Twelve St. Luke knew nothing, or there was
nothing for him to tell about them that passed beyond
the limits of a simple uneventful ministry. Hence
the term apostle " must receive a somewhat wider
connotation, and this would be allowed by the mean
ing which was at that time still generally attached
to the word. The ministry of Philip, Barnabas,
Apollos, but above all of St. Paul, was to be described.
And now, under the shadow of the general theme
and in subordination thereto, the two great heroes
of primitive Christian history, St. Peter and St. Paul,
could also come into their full rights. The Acts of the
Apostles is a parte potiori a description of the ministry
of St. Peter and St. Paul. In its first part St. Peter
rules almost exclusively, in its second part St. Paul
is absolutely supreme. Yet no one can describe this
book as the combination of two apostolic biographies.
On the contrary, with extraordinary skill, care is taken
that the biographical element never passes a certain
limit. Biographical curiosity is not fully satisfied,
indeed it is compelled to content itself with little or
no information on very important points.

St. Peter and St. Paul this combination which in
the memory of the Church occupies the highest place
of honour after the Founder Himself was certainly
not created by St. Luke, but by History herself. Yet
we may well question whether this combination would
have impressed itself so exclusively and so firmly upon
the memory of posterity without the Acts of the
Apostles. Had the Great Unknown, who at a little

xx INTRODUCTION

later period worked in Asia, and there gathered round
him a circle of presbyters had he found such a bio
grapher as St. Luke, it is probable that the dual
monarchy of the two chief apostles in the memory
of the Church would have been shaken ; and had
James, the Lord s brother, won to his side an Hellenic
author, in the Jerusalem of the future this James
might easily have been regarded as the chief per
sonality of the Apostolic epoch. Attempts were made
on behalf of both these personalities, but at too late
a date and by unqualified persons. Hence, estab
lished and protected by the Acts of the Apostles, the
twin apostles St. Peter and St. Paul abide unques
tioned on their lofty pedestal, whence they can never
be thrown down. Of the change which in later days
came over the Church s appreciation of the relative
importance of these apostles it is not here the place
to speak. Only let it be said that St. Luke does not
set either above the other. His narrative of St. Paul
is of one personally known to himself, while for what
he says of St. Peter he depends upon information
from outside this naturally constitutes an important
difference ; but apart from this insuperable difference
he speaks of both w r ith equal veneration ; and ques
tions of rivalry between the two do not lie at all
within his horizon. If he allows the orbit of St.
Peter to intersect that of St. Paul once only at the
climax of his narrative (chap, xv.) while, as we
learn from Acts ix. 27, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. i. 12, these
orbits often touched one another, this is bound up
with a definite conception and treatment of his theme
on the part of the author, a circumstance which, in

INTRODUCTION xxi

spite of all that has been written on the Acts, has
hitherto been left out of consideration.

To demonstrate historically the power of the Spirit
of Jesus in the Apostles this was the general theme
of St. Luke. But how indefinite must this theme
have ever appeared in the face of the crowd of pheno
mena which presented themselves to the historian !
How was he to master them ? where was he to draw
the limits of subject-matter, of scene, and of actors ?
If he was to steer a fixed and sure course over this
boundless ocean he must discover some guiding prin
ciple. Again his simple solution of the problem
shows his genius. The power of the Spirit of Jesus
manifested itself most impressively in the Mission,
in that victorious progress wherein the proclamation
of the Gospel was carried from Jerusalem to Home.
That within a few decades the new religion had
spread from little Galilee throughout the whole
empire, that it had won to itself both Greeks and
barbarians, and had been proclaimed even before
kings and proconsuls with this fact nothing else
could be compared, and everything worthy of narra
tion could be subordinated to this theme. This
fact, therefore the expansion of the Gospel could not
but come to the front as the principle of selection
and exclusion, and as the leading idea which was to
give form to the whole. At the very beginning of
the work it is most distinctly proclaimed : " Ye will
receive the power of the Holy Spirit and will be My
witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth " ; and it
is expressed yet more impressively in the great scene

xxii INTRODUCTION

of the second chapter, which, in fact, anticipates
the conclusion of the mighty drama, where, in
words which sound like a triumphant conqueror s
list of nations vanquished in a great campaign,
we read : " Parthians and Medes and Elamites,
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Asia "
and the rest. As far as the Roman Imperator
rules, and farther still beyond the bounds of his
empire, the world now hears the Evangelic message
and accepts it !

It is wonderful how firmly, exclusively, and con
sistently St. Luke throughout the whole book has
kept the idea of the Mission and expansion of Chris
tianity in his eye, and has scarcely anywhere allowed
himself a digression. 1 Even the long narrative of
the particular stages of the trial of St. Paul, and
of the perils of the last voyage up to the final arrival
in Rome, scarcely forms an exception ; for that trial
is a grand confession of Christianity before the whole
world and its rulers, represented by the Roman
governor and King Agrippa ; while the voyage and
shipwreck tend to intensify the suspense of the
reader as he wonders whether after all the Gospel
will be proclaimed in the metropolis of the world
through the preaching of St. Paul. " And so we
arrived at Rome" (/ecu OVTCOS V Tqv Pco/zjyv yXBajmev,
note the article) with these words the conclusion
of the book is introduced, and the conclusion of
the conclusion runs : " And Paul preached (there)
the kingdom of God, and taught concerning the

1 Only one single subsidiary aim is to be discerned the defence
of St. Paul against Judaistic calumnies.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding
him."

But this victorious progress had a dark side which,
LO the historian St. Luke, is scarcely less important
than the bright side : the Jewish nation, among
whom Jesus Christ had appeared and from whom the
whole movement had taken its origin, had not only
rejected their Messiah, but had more and more
hardened themselves against the preaching of the
Gospel, had everywhere attempted to throw the
greatest obstacles in the way of its progress among
the Gentiles, and with increasing energy of intrigue
had stirred up persecutions against the Christians.
Through the malicious machinations of this wretched
nation the history which St. Luke has to write be
comes a drama, and thus it is that he presents it.
Moreover, not only must he describe these machina
tions, but he must also show that, in spite of all
the ceaseless and sincere attempts of the Apostles
of St. Paul also to bring the Jews to a better
mind, they nevertheless became only more and more
hostile.

But why ? Is it not a sign of the weakness of
the Gospel that it could not gain over the Jews,
and must therefore pass on to the Greeks and the
Barbarians ? No thought is more alien to St. Luke
than this which so easily suggests itself to us ! He
turns its point in the opposite direction, in that with
St. Paul he sees in the Jews 1 rejection of the Gospel
and their hostile attitude to the Mission the pre
destined arrangement and the foreordained judgment
of God. The divine rejection of the Jews had indeed

xxiv INTRODUCTION

been already foretold by the Prophets ; now it was
being fulfilled, in that the Gentiles were being called.
Thus the seal is set to the legitimacy of Christianity,
the new religion is even thereby shown to be the
fulfilment of the Old Testament, and for the future
it seizes upon this book also as its own. This nega
tive theme, which runs like a scarlet thread through
the whole book, is summarised once again with im
pressive emphasis in the antepenultimate verse of the
Acts : " Be it known therefore unto you that this
salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles ; they will
also hear."

The Jew is in a sense the villain in this dramatic
history, yet not as in the Gospel of St. John and
the Apocalypse the Jew in the abstract who has
almost become an incarnation of the evil principle,
but the real Jew without generalisation and exaggera
tion in his manifold gradations of Pharisee, Sadducee,
aristocrat, Jew of Palestine or of the Dispersion.
Where St. Luke knows anything more favourable
concerning particular sections or persons among the
Jews he does not keep silence, and so sacrifice truth
to his theology of history. He tells us that very
many Jewish priests had entered the new community ;
he speaks of converted Pharisees ; he reports the
prudent counsel of Gamaliel ; he does not conceal
from us that the whole Jewish colony in Beroea
accepted the teaching of St. Paul with great good
will, and that even among the Jews of Rome some
were won over by the Apostle. This impartiality of
the narrative, in a point where there was such an
extraordinary temptation to partiality, is a valuable

INTRODUCTION xxv

proof of the careful sense of justice of the historian
St. Luke. 1

1 Different stages are to be traced in the anti-Semitism (anti-
Judaism) of the early Gentile-Christians. St. Luke marks the first
stage ; for St. Paul was never anti- Judaistic ; of coarse the early
Church soon forgot Rom. xi, 25-32, if it ever really gave heed to
this passage. St. Luke himself has adopted from St. Paul the
theory of the hardening of Israel without Rom. xi. 25 ff; yet he
regards the religion and piety of the Old Testament with the
deepest reverence ; he still joys over every Jew who is converted,
and does not in the least place the individual under the ban of
his general theory. "St. John" marks the next stage. Here the
Jews are already almost always mentioned only in terms which
imply the Divine Rejection, and are treated as massa proditionis
et perditionis ; yet the author, looking back to the pre-Christian
epoch, suffers them to stand in their privileged position (iv.22 :
i] ffurrjpia. in rCiv lovSaiuv tarlv, i. 47 : fdf aXydus IffpaifXeirijt, iv
$ 56Xos OVK tariv, x. 8 is to be confined to false Messiahs). The
third stage is marked by the Apologists, who, agreeing with St.
Luke and St. John in the theory of Israel s hardening, regard
the ordinances revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament as a
means of discipline and punishment; who, by forced interpreta
tion, deprive the Jews of all the promises referring to their nation,
and separate the men of God of the Old Testament from con
nection with the Jewish people. The fourth stage is characterised
by the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the author of which rejects,
together with the Jewish nation, the whole cultus and all the
legal ordinances of the Old Testament as a diabolical misrepre
sentation of the truth, and accordingly admits the Old Testament,
which he claims exclusively for Christianity, only under an alle
gorical interpretation. The fifth and last stage is given in Marcion
and the Gnostics. Here, together with the Jewish nation and
Judaism, the whole Old Testament is thrown overboard, either as
a book of the devil or of the Demiurge ; either as a complicated
work composed of utterly different elements, or as a book full of
absurd myths and lying invention. All these standpoints have their
roots in Paulinism, and their champions sought to establish them by
appealing to the teaching of St. Paul This fact is perhaps the
strongest proof that St. Paul was a writer essentially incompre
hensible to his age, however well he must have been understood

xxvi INTRODUCTION

Moreover, it is not only the regard paid to the
conduct of the Jews that brings the play of action
and reaction into the narrative of the Acts ; this is
also brought about in the first part of the Acts by
the open acknowledgment of the fact that at the
beginning not only was there no mission to the
Gentiles in existence, but that at first no one had
even thought of such a mission, and that it was only
through a slow process of development that this
mission was prepared for and established. Practic
ally all that lies written in the Acts between the
sixth and the fifteenth chapters, thus more than a
third part of the book, is dedicated to the demon
stration of the historical problem, how it came
about that there was a mission to the Gentiles at all.

The longer I study the work of St. Luke the
more am I astonished that this fact has not forced
his critics to treat him with more respect than they
show him. but not a few of them treat their own
conceits in regard to the book with more respect
than the grand lines of the work, which they either
take as a matter of course, or criticise from the
standpoint of their own superior knowledge. Yet
it was by no means a matter of course that the

as the great pioneer missionary. As a theological thinker he came
out of another generation of long ago, and passed over into another
generation far in the future. He was and he remained a Jew, and
yet he anticipated, with his doctrine of freedom bound by Faith
alone, the development of a whole epoch. The great region lying
between these extreme points, with its gradual ascent, did not
exist for him. His contemporaries, however, only knew this
region. Like all natures of true genius, he lived in the past
and in the future.

INTRODUCTION xxvii

author should have raised the question : " How is it
that within the Christian movement, originally
Jewish, there arose a mission to the Gentiles ? " nor
that he should have at once treated it as a problem
of the first importance and have exerted himself
to give it an historical solution. Who else in the
early Church except St. Luke, whether of his
contemporaries or of a later generation, even pro
posed this problem ? And when it was proposed,
who has treated it otherwise than dogmatically with
the worthless and absolutely fallacious explanation
that the mission to the Gentiles was already foretold
in the Old Testament, and had, moreover, been
expressly enjoined by our Lord ? What other idea
than this is given by the Apostolic Fathers and the
Apologists ? Or to say nothing of these what else
do we learn from St. Matthew and St. Mark (chap,
xvi.) ? Thus, the very fact that St. Luke has raised
this question, and has made its consideration a chief
point of his historical work, shows an amount of
historical insight which claims the highest apprecia
tion. It is, moreover, a proof that St. Luke himself
had in some way taken part in this great historical
development, or at least stood in some pretty close
relationship to it, for what in the wide world could
make a Greek of about the end of the first century
feel that he ought to explain how the Gospel came
to be preached to the Gentiles ; how could he have
even proposed to himself such a question whose
answer seemed given in the short and simple lan
guage of accomplished fact a question which was
indeed no longer a problem for consideration, but a

xxviii INTRODUCTION

dogmatic postulate unless he had been in personal
touch with the development of days gone by ?

But in far higher measure than for the statement
of this problem, St. Luke deserves recognition for
the manner in which he has answered it. It has,
of course, always been thought necessary to criticise
with especial rigour this aspect of St. Luke s narra
tive ; here, however, the critics have both overlooked
points in his narrative which are undoubtedly correct,
and also have set themselves to assail historical
positions which upon closer investigation they neces
sarily would have found to be unassailable. We have
in the first place to note what answers he has not
given. He has ascribed the beginnings of the
mission to the Gentiles neither to St. Paul as it
would have been so natural for him to do nor to
the Twelve, nor to St. Peter, indeed he has expressly
described the course of events in such a way as to
show that St. Peter after receiving an isolated Divine
command to baptize a Gentile, did not for years
draw therefrom any further practical conclusion.
Therefore the representation which is given in the
Acts of the Apostles is not one that has been manu
factured in favour of the Apostles. Again, what
St. Luke tells us of the Christian Hellenists in Jeru
salem and their conflict with the Christian Hebrews;
of the Hellenist Stephen who prophesied the de
struction of the Temple and the change of the
ordinances given by Moses ; of the Evangelist Philip
who first preached the Gospel among the Samaritans
and baptized the eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia ;
of the unnamed men of Cyprus and Cyrene who first

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

preached the Go.spel to Greeks and formed them
into a Christian community; of the college of Elders
at the head of the Church in Jerusalem who made
no protest when Christians from Jerusalem went to
distant Antioch and demanded that the Gentile
Christians in that city should be circumcised ; lastly,
of that same college of Elders who found themselves
compelled to recognise the Gentile mission in the
face of the grand fait accompli which St. Paul and
St. Barnabas had brought about in South-eastern
Asia Minor J all these records bear the stamp of
historical truth. And if towards the close of his
narrative he remarks by the way that the great
majority of Christians in Jerusalem were still zealous
of the Law, and needed to be protected from the
danger of yielding credence to calumnious charges
against St. Paul how can he be accused of con
cealing the true course of events ? Though he may
indeed have erred elsewhere in this or in that par
ticular point, he cannot be charged with a definite
bias or with a want of knowledge obscuring his
whole presentation of the history. If he is silent
upon many points on which we to-day would gladly
have information, this surely cannot be justly
reckoned to his discredit !

And the less so seeing that he has confined
himself strictly to the theme which he had marked
out for himself. The seeming gaps in his narra
tive become no gaps for us so soon as we realise

1 Chapters xiii. and xiv. are simply written to prepare for
chapter xv., and what they relate must be interpreted in the
light of that chapter.

xxx INTRODUCTION

the task he set himself. What this was is clear
from what we have already said ; it was to show
how the power of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles
founded the Primitive Community, called into being
the mission to the Gentiles, conducted the Gospel
from Jerusalem to Rome, and set the receptive Gentile
world in the place of the Jewish nation, which hard
ened its heart more and more against the appeal of
Christianity. From these main lines upon which the
work was planned, and which were abstracted in the
happiest way from the actual situation of events, St.
Luke scarcely ever deviates. If one keeps this fact
well in view, one will no longer wonder that he tells
us so little about the Churches, and that he scarcely
touches upon the inner life of individuals even of
St. Paul and of the Christian community. 1 When
he conducts the missionaries to a new scene of action
he only asks himself: how it was that they came
there ? what reception they found among the Jews ?
what among the Gentiles ? and, if any material was
to hand on this point, how they were received by
the Roman authorities of the place ? about how
long they stayed there ? and what was the manner
of their departure ? If in his narrative he gives
anything more than bald answers to these ques
tions, it must be because of specially important
personages and events in which the power of the
Spirit manifested itself in extraordinary ways. There
is also no justification for charging him with a
distinctly politico- apologetic bias. The dedication

i We should, however, here remember the limitations of ancient
historical literature.

INTRODUCTION xxxi

of the work shows that it was addressed to a man
who was an instructed Christian, and there are no
indications that St. Luke had heathen readers in
his mind as he wrote. We need not assume that
he excluded these, but they were not distinctly in his
view. If in spite of this he has laid so much stress
upon showing that the Gospel was proclaimed before
magistrates, proconsuls, and kings, and that these
adopted towards it on the whole a not unfriendly
attitude, this fact does not necessarily imply some
political tendency of a special character on the part
of the author. With every new religious movement
the attitude of the public very quickly becomes a
question of the deepest interest, and the public is in
the first line represented by the authorities. In this
case, moreover, the interest must have been deepened
by the contrast between the behaviour of the Roman
authorities and those of the Jews. What St. Luke
tells us in this connection simply answered to the
facts ; and if, beginning with Pilate, he regards
hostile behaviour on the part of the Roman autho
rities as far more pardonable than similar behaviour
on the part of the Jewish authorities, surely no
Christian could judge otherwise. Besides he is as
far from suppressing instances of unfriendliness and
hostility on the part of the Roman and civic police
authorities as he is, on the other hand, from keeping
silence concerning friendly behaviour on the part of
the Jews (vide supra).

Whilst the first half of the first part of the Acts
(chaps, i.-v.) captivates the reader with its record of
the mighty deeds and the great sermons by which

xxxii INTRODUCTION

the foundation of the Primitive Community was firmly
laid, the second half of the first part (chaps, vi. xv.),
with its thronging abundance of facts of the most
varied character yet all pointing towards and pre
paring for the triumphant appearance of the mission
to the Gentiles, holds him in a dramatic suspense.
This suspense would be well-nigh intolerable if the
author had not understood how to temper it by his
skill in narrative and by a style which has about it
something of the epic full of life, and yet not
unrestful. Though Stephen is martyred, though St.
Paul after his first appearance again vanishes from
the scene of action, though St. Peter draws no further
practical conclusion from the Divine vision, though
unbidden guests from Jerusalem seek to trouble the
Gentile Church in Antioch yet they find one
another at last, Jerusalem and Antioch, the Gospel
and the Gentile world.

The second part of the book lacks a special theme
of such vivacious character as that of the first.
There now remained only to describe the extension
of the gospel to Rome. 1 What means has St. Luke
here employed to ensure the continued interest of his
readers ? In the first place, the " we "-narrative
now makes its appearance, and gives to several long
passages vivacity and a distinct charm. In the
second place, throughout the first half of this part
the interest of the reader is kept alive by the rapid
progress of the narrative, by the variety of important

1 The line of division quite plainly comes after xvi. 5 ; but
xv. 3t&gt;-xvi. 5 forms the transition from the first to the second
part. The first part closes with xv. 35.

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

events, by the change of scene (Philippi, Thessalonica,
Beroea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), finally by the
culmination in the long abode in Ephesus and in the
great and significant farewell discourse pronounced
before the Ephcsian elders. 1 At the close of this
third quarter of the work Home now appears on the
horizon and remains the goal of the last quarter of
the narrative. Just as the central point of interest
in the second quarter of the book is this whether
the Gospel and the Gentile world will ever meet, so now
in the fourth quarter the sole subject of enthralling
interest is this whether St. Paul will ever succeed in
carrying the Gospel to Rome. Hindrance follows
hindrance yet each affords St. Paul an opportunity
for giving noble testimony finally sea and storm-wind
seem to have conspired together against his undertak
ing ; and yet he succeeds his desire, his appropriate
destiny is fulfilled ; he brings the Gospel to Rome. But
in this last section St. Luke perhaps is influenced
by yet another interest allied to that of the second
quarter (the question of the origin and legitimacy
of the mission to the Gentiles). St Paul and his
work must be set forth in their pure nobility and
grandeur, i.e. his mission to the Gentiles must be
shown to have been legitimate (there are three narra
tives of his call !) The Gospel was brought to the
Gentile world by no unworthy minister, but by a
vas electionis." He was no destroyer of the Jewish
religion, but the most powerful and strenuous affirmer

1 In order to avoid repetition and not to weaken the impression
of continued progress, the narrative is so skilfully managed that
the reader scarcely notices St. Paul s second visits to these places.

xxxiv INTRODUCTION

of its hopes ; he was no revolutionary, " neither in
respect to the Jewish Law nor to the Temple nor
to Caesar." Here, however, the emphasis this is
worthy of note ! is laid upon his relationship to the
Jewish religion (not to Csesar), and this is a further
proof that St. Luke still stood in very close personal
touch with the primitive times ; for what Hellene has
ever treated the Jewish religion and the Old Testa
ment piety, existing side by side with Christianity,
with such tender, indeed to us almost unintelligible,
respect as the author shows here and elsewhere in his
work ! It is not till we reach Irenaeus that the
sympathy of the Gentile Church with Old Testament
piety becomes again awakened ; and this was an
artificial awakening, the exciting cause of which was
the conflict with Gnosticism.

There is another very important question which
presents itself in connection with the subject-matter
of the work Why is it that St. Luke in working
out his theme, the extension of the Gospel to Rome,
has confined himself so exclusively to the ministry of
St. Paul ? He must surely have known of several
provinces, wherein in his times Christians were found,
that had not been converted by St. Paul (he him
self notes by the way that Apollos was won over to
Christianity in Alexandria). He must also have
known that the Gospel was not first brought to Rome
by St. Paul. In my opinion, the question can only
be answered by assuming that St. Luke s conception
of the term "Apostle," though not absolutely narrow,
was yet already very definite, and that in his narra
tive of the propagation of the Gospel he is satisfied

INTRODUCTION xxxv

with describing only its progress across the world
from Jerusalem to Rome. The latter procedure was
certainly wise ; for his narrative would have exceeded
all bounds if he had aimed at even approximate
fulness in geographical statistics. If the former
assumption is true, it necessarily resulted in the
glorification of St. Paul ; for the Twelve never took
part in the mission to the Gentiles, and St. Luke
scarcely regards such persons as Stephen, Philip,
Silas, Priscilla and her husband, and Apollos as
standing to a certain degree on a level with the
Twelve. Accordingly, he was left with Paul and
Barnabas. Men like Mark and Timothy might have
felt hurt, yet note how St. Luke refers to his own
missionary activity in only the most modest terms.
The title Apostle had already received an exclusive
connotation, and it was the apostle alone who really
legitimised the mission. If even for people like
St. Luke, holding " spiritual " gifts in such high
regard and really so spiritually free, the office of
apostle had so quickly attained to an exclusive
authority, what a multitude of unauthorised mis
sionaries preaching " Jesus "" must even at that time
have been carrying on their work in the provinces
of the Empire ! Moreover, though St. Peter during
the time of St. Paul s ministry not only visited
Antioch, but may also not improbably have paid a
passing visit to Corinth, the silence of the Acts
concerning him is sufficiently explained by the
purpose of the book, which did not admit the
narration of the experiences of any church after its
foundation.

xxxvi INTRODUCTION

Of the ancient historian s liberty to insert speeches
at appropriate places in his work, whether reports
of speeches actually made or free compositions, St.
Luke has made an extensive and a happy use. Just
as in the Gospel we find a succession of actions and
sayings of our Lord (Acts i. 1, irepi TTGLVTUIV &v ^p^aro
It]&lt;rovs TTOieiv re KOI SiSd(TKeii ), so also in the second
part of his work he must report both actions and
discourses. The discourses predominate in the first
and in the last quarters of the Acts ; while in the
second and third quarters, though occupying less
space, they are only the more weighty in substance.
The highest level, according to our taste and perhaps
also according to the taste of the first readers, is
reached in the speeches of chapters xv., xvii., and xx. ;
but the speeches at the beginning of the work are
really fundamental in their Christology, and those
at the close assure the readers that their great
missionary St. Paul was the divinely appointed
instrument of the mission, and the great witness for
Christ before governors and kings.

During the last decade ever deeper insight has
been gained into the language in which St. Luke
has composed his work, and in consequence hasty
generalisations of old standing have been corrected.
In this connection Blass deserves specially high credit.
A very large portion of the supposed Semitic idioms
have vanished the " Koivrj " already included these
Semitisms nor as a rule should they be so regarded,
but rather as natural productions of the Kom; that
more or less accidentally coincide with Semitic forms.
Some, of course, are still left, especially in well-marked

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

divisions of the work, and it remains to be investi
gated just as in the case of the Gospel whether
these divisions are not translated from Aramaic
sources. In general St. Luke^s style very nearly
approaches that of the Septuagint, more particu
larly that of the books of the Maccabees (but this
itself is nothing but the style of the spoken language
of educated men). Non-classical words and words
of the vulgar idiom are comparatively rare. The
syntax and certain stereotyped syntactical formulae
aie "vulgar" and non-classical; but it is probable
that these also had already gained a recognised place
in the more refined literary version of the language
of the people. It is now also recognised that St.
Luke was a master of language who, with careful
purpose, has accommodated his style in different
portions of his work to the scene of action and the
dignity of his subject-matter. Just as in the Gospel
he has so treated the stories of the Infancy that one
might imagine that one was reading a piece of
history from the Septuagint, so also in the Jerusalem
sections of the Acts, especially at the beginning, he
retains this style; and so long as the scene of action
remains in Palestine he holds fast, in vocabulary,
syntax, and style, to the type of narrative which he
has followed in the Gospel. Very gradually he passes
over to a freer and at the same time more classical
type of narrative. The style becomes, so to say,
more profane, and even thereby more cosmopolitan,
yet without detracting from the dignity of the narra
tive. In the last quarter of the book, although the
scene again lies for the most part in Palestine, the

xxxviii INTRODUCTION

later style is still preserved, for the new movement
is no longer simply Palestinian, but now plays out its
part on the stage of the world. The author intended
that this fact should here find expression even in his
style. It is, however, most remarkable that St. Luke,
in spite of all the variety which he has introduced
into the form of his narrative, has understood how
to preserve the stylistic unity of his work. In
reading one receives no impression of patchiness or
of want of organic connection. The style also is
free from all suspicion of pose, and there is a com
plete absence of vain and empty rhetoric. Scarcely
ever does the writer use a single superfluous word.
He is ever concerned only with the root of the
matter in hand, he knows how to tell a very great
deal in a few words, and he never tries to bribe
his readers with tricks of oratory. In respect of
its style this work can be compared with the best
literary productions of the Hellenico-Roman period.
Read the descriptions of the Pentecostal scene, of
the conversion of St. Paul, of that apostle s mission
in Athens, of the shipwreck, and many another
passage !

And now where are to be found the weak points
of this author? We cannot say that he is on the
whole either credulous or uncritical. Credulous and
uncritical writers of those days produced works of
an entirely different character from his ! Again,
for the larger half of the work we possess in the
epistles of St. Paul a test of the accuracy of the
historian than which we can scarcely imagine a more
stringent. That these epistles were creations of the

INTRODUCTION xxxix

moment, the offspring of a personality of the most
marked subjectivity, only increases the stringency of
the test. And yet it is only the over-scrupulous and
the dividers of hairs who cannot recognise that in
dozens of important and unimportant passages the
Acts of the Apostles has stood the test imposed upon
it by the Pauline epistles. Leaving out of account
a few minute details, the descriptions of the Council
of Jerusalem and of St. Paul s apology in the last
speeches, in fact the whole account of his attitude
towards the Jews at his last visit to Jerusalem, alone
remain questionable. In reference to the latter point,
it seems to me that what St. Luke records may be
very easily harmonised with the character and
theology of St. Paul as set forth in the epistles, if
one only does not confine oneself narrowly and
rigidly to the Epistle to the Galatians, as of course
every one still does. And in reference to the Council
of Jerusalem, it remains to be proved whether such
serious mistakes occur in the Acts as to render its
authorship by St. Luke inconceivable. His real weak
nesses as an historian seem to me to lie elsewhere
in the first place, in his credulity in reference to
cases of miraculous healing and of " spiritual " gifts ;
secondly, in a tendency to carelessness and inaccuracy,
often of a very far-reaching influence in his narrative,
which may be partly due to his endeavour after
brevity ; lastly, in a tendency to work up important
situations. The last failing, measured by the
standards of ancient historians, can scarcely be
regarded as a fault in method, and in reference to
the first, we must take into consideration that, as

xl INTRODUCTION

is the case in every enthusiastic religious movement,
" wonders and signs " really occurred, and especially
that class of phenomena with which what is to-day
called " Christian Science " is concerned. But only
he that is acquainted with the religious charlatanism
of that age and the extravagancies of its productions
can know from what a mass of esoteric rubbish, of
fraudulent magic, and pious absurdity the author has
kept himself free. All these things we know found
their way even into Christianity at that time or
soon afterwards. From these St. Luke, however, kept
himself free.

We must also in this connection remember the
fact that St. Paul (Col. iv. 14) calls St. Luke
expressly, and in a context where the epithet has
doubled weight, " the physician, the beloved." He
had therefore tried him and approved him as a
physician and a friend, and from his experience of
St. Luke he is impelled to give him this public
testimony. If one now compares how modestly and
yet with what firm assurance St. Luke cursorily
mentions his successful cures (Acts xxviii. 910 . . .
eOepcnrevovTo, ol Kai TroAAcu? Ti/uai$ eri/mjcrav ///?
Ilamsay has justly laid stress upon the fact that in
verse 8 the word used of St. Paul is /acraro), one
by no means receives the impression of some wild
enthusiast who cured diseases, but of a man who
continued to practise his profession of physician with
success, and who in it had earned the permanent
esteem of a man of such high temper as St. Paul.
That he took account also of cures in answer to
prayer, that his attitude towards them was uncritical,

INTRODUCTION xli

that in fact he has no clear knowledge of the
boundary-line separating science from magic what
special reason is there here for surprise ! And lastly,
as to the instances of carelessness and inaccuracy in
his narrative, we must indeed keep these closely in
view, for he has suffered from them more than
anything else in that they have laid him open to
the exaggerated calumnies of those who would
blacken his literary character. Against these vul
nerable points the critics hurl themselves in order
to tear down and to scatter in pieces. And yet
these many instances of inaccuracy, which are
easily discerned as such just because they are a
constant quantity, are as a rule harmless and un
fitted to serve as a base for far-reaching critical
operations.

The account which we have here given of the char
acter of the Acts of the Apostles and of its author
St. Luke does not yet enjoy universal acceptance; rather
it is entirely, or almost entirely, rejected by numerous
critics. With them the book passes as a compara
tively late patchwork compilation, ijj which the part
taken by the editor is insignificant, yet in all cases
detrimental ; the " we "-sections are not the property
of the author, but an extract from a source, or even
a literary fiction ; historical errors are as numerous
as gaps and ill-disguised joinings ; the portrait of
St. Paul is drawn with bias, or in ignorance ; the
description given in the first chapters is scarcely
anywhere other than pure fancy Peter is Pauline,
Paul is Petrine ; but who can number the objections
that have been raised against this book ! If they

xlii INTRODUCTION

were only objections that one could take hold of!
But after no small number of these has been finally
refuted, one has to deal not so much with definite
objections, as with an attitude of general mistrust in
the book, with airy conceits and lofty contempt ;
most of all, however, with the fruits of that vicious
method wherein great masses of theory are hung
upon the spider s thread of a single observation,
wherein a writer of the New Testament is allowed
no weakness, no possibility of ignorance, wherein
instances of such failing are used as powder to blow
the whole book into the air. In the first volume of
this series, entitled " Luke the Physician " (Crown
Theological Library, 1907), I have therefore tried in
the first place to prove the identity of the author of the
" we "-sections with St. Luke, and at the same time to
refute some of these objections and critical vagarities
not by means of the more or less subjective apologetic
of the harmonist, but by assiduous attention to, and
exhibition of, facts and observations that confirm one
another. In the following pages I continue these
investigations in order to arrive at a more assured
judgment as to how far the book is homogeneous, as
to its sources and its degree of trustworthiness, and
by this means to prove afresh the identity of the
author of the " we "-sections with the author of the
whole work. In an age wherein critical hypotheses,
once upon a time not unfruitful, have hardened
themselves into dogmas, and when if an attempt is
made to defend a book against prejudice, misunder
standing, and misrepresentation, scornful remarks are
made about "special pleading," it is not superfluous

INTRODUCTION xliii

to declare that the method which is here employed
is influenced by no prepossession of any kind. It
is of course disgraceful that the circumstances of
criticism at the present day make such a declaration
necessary

CHAPTER I

CHIIONOLOGICAL DATA 1

IN the prologue to his twofold historical work St.
Luke has announced that he wishes to write down
everything " KaOe^s" This word, as well as the
synonym " e/9," occurs in the New Testament only
in the Lukan writings (St. Luke i. 3 ; viii. 1 ; Acts
iii. 24; xi. 4; xviii. 23; e^tjs : St. Luke vii. 11;
ix. 37; Acts xxi. 1; xxv. 17; xxvii. 18). 2 The
word does not necessarily denote a chronological
arrangement, though as a rule it means this, and its
use in the other places suggests that this signification
is to be understood here. We have not in all cases
the means of judging how far St. Luke has succeeded
in establishing a correct chronological arrangement.
In his gospel it is obvious that he does not come up
to an even moderate chronological standard ; but in
the Acts every one allows that he had the oppor
tunity of doing, and has done, better things. His
procedure in regard to chronology in the Acts, so
far as I know, has not yet been subjected to a

1 This chapter was read at a meeting of the Prussian Academy,
and was published in their reports (Sitzunysberichten, 25th April
1907). It appears here in a somewhat different and more developed
form.

2 Throughout this book the numbers in bolder type denote
passages hi the " we "-sections.

2 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

thorough and connected investigation. And yet
more accurate knowledge on this point is of interest
in two respects, both in relation to the question of
the trustworthiness of the work (or of the literary
conscientiousness of the author) and in relation to
the question of its unity.

In the first place, the book is disappointing in so
far as it gives evidence of no trace of a connected
chronological framework. The construction of such
a framework, for at least the principal part of the
narrative, could not have presented special difficulties
to a man with the author s culture and access to
sources of information, even if he were not the com
panion of the Apostle. 1 He must, therefore, have
regarded it as of no importance, and have used
KdOeffi not in this sense. In this attitude he,
moreover, shows himself an adept in the historical
writing of those days which, especially if it aimed
at edification or amusement, set up no chronological
framework and was sparing in the use of definite
dates. So also St. Luke is content to refer to con
temporary history in only a few passages where such
reference seemed to him fitting -if these few passages
may be so understood elsewhere he only gives rela
tive dates. Even the passages where the succession of
years is mentioned are few in number ; on the other
hand, the author shows interest in times of festivals,
in days, and in hours again in accordance with the
custom of writers of his day. These references are
intended to give life to the narrative, i.e. to the narra-

1 And yet all chronological systems of those days were wanting
in connection, in clearness, and exactitude.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 3

tive of particular events. He does not, as a rule, place
the reader in a position to judge whether he repre
sents events in their correct order ; his desire is
rather that the reader should simply trust him in
this matter. But for this very reason, because he
has not thought of consistently dating events by the
year in which they occurred, nor of a chronological
framework for his work, the passages wherein he
produces chronological material have special value ;
for they do not belong to a system, but are scattered
throughout the book apart from any tendency what
ever. Let us consider in order the chronological
expedients of which the writer has availed himself,
distinguishing the while his use of them in connection
with the history of Christianity in Palestine, from
his use of them in connection with the history of
Christianity in the Diaspora.

I. Chronological References to Contemporary History.

As concerns the history in Palestine, apart from
a few references to the past, 1 and to person-

i Our Lord executed under Pilate and Herod Antipas (iv. 27,
&c.) ; in the days of "the enrolment" (v. 37); Theudas (v. 36);
Judas the Galilaean (v. 37) ; the " Egyptian " (xxi. 38). Here let
it be noted by the way that St. Luke gives us certain informa
tion, nowhere else recorded, concerning the relationship of Herod
Antipas and his court to Christ and the new religion. He ex
pressly refers to this Herod when giving the date of the public
appearance of our Lord (St. Luke hi. 1); he records (viii. 3) that
among the women who followed our Lord was to be found one
Joanna, the wife of a steward of Herod (cf. xxiv. 10), and (Acts
xiii. 1) that among the spiritual leaders of the Primitive Community
of Antioch was a " syntrophos" (confidential friend) of Herod,

4 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

ages l of note whose date was known or could easily be
ascertained, the only information that the author gives
us is that the general famine foretold by Agabus, the
prophet from Jerusalem, actually came to pass " under
Claudius " (xi. 28), and that at the same time 2 (xii. 1)
a persecution of the Christians was set on foot by
King Herod Agrippa I. (the name of Herod tempts
the author to a digression concerning the circumstances
under which Herod died soon afterwards : the quarrel
with the people of Tyre and Sidon ; Blastus the
chamberlain ; the presumptuous pride of the king ;
mors persec utoris ! xii. 2023). The former chrono
logical note is due simply to the author s desire to
bear witness to the fulfilment of the prophet s pre
diction ; the latter notice arises in the natural course
of events, seeing that Herod himself (in order to
please the Jews) had thrown himself in the path of

Manaen by name. He hands down to us an utterance of our Lord
concerning Herod (St. Luke xiii. 32), otherwise unknown, and he
relates that our Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod for judgment
(xxiii. 7 /. ).

1 Gamaliel (v. 34 ; xxii. 3) ; the chief priests Annas and
Caiaphas, and John (Jonathan) and Alexander (iv. 6) ; the high-
priest Ananias (xxiii. 2; xxiv. If.); the procurator Felix (xxiii. 6,
&c.); Brasilia the wife of Felix (xxiv. 24) ; the procurator Festus
(xxiv. 27, &c.) ; the king Agrippa II. and Bernice (xxv. 13, &c.).
In mentioning the Ethiopian queen Candace, St. Luke does not
give us an indirect chronological reference, seeing that at that
time and afterwards all the Ethiopian queens were called by that
name.

2 KO.T tKtivov rbv Kaip&v. Weiss describes the expression as
chronologically incorrect, because he regards it as referring to
the time of the first origin of a Gentile Christian community, a
time which was far in the past. But it really refers to the time of
the Famine, or rather to the time of the journey of St. Paul and
St. Barnabas to Jerusalem, and is therefore not incorrect.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 5

the youthful Church. Neither in the one case nor in
the other can we therefore trace any real chrono
logical interest on the part of the author.

As concerns the history in the Diaspora, here again
Claudius is the only emperor mentioned by name,
and his name forms the sole directly chronological
notice. When St. Paul came to Corinth he found
there one Aquila with Priscilla his wife, who had
lately come from Italy ; they had been compelled to
leave their place of abode Sia TO ^tareTa^evai K\av$iov
^(t)pi(e(rQai Trarra? TOV? lou^a/ou? OTTO rrjs Pu&gt;/u.tj$
(xviii. 2). 1 Here again this information is not given
for the sake of chronology, but quite casually. That
St. Luke knows of the edict of Claudius, and records
it, shows that he interested himself in the fortunes
and doings of the Jews in the Diaspora. Besides this
piece of information mention is made of a few
notable persons, such as the pro-consul Sergius Paulus
in Cyprus (xiii. 7), and the pro-consul Gallio in
Corinth (xviii. 12 /!). Here again the names are
mentioned in the natural course of the narrative ;
there is nothing that is intentionally chronological. 2

1 In both cases (here and xi. 28) St. Luke has omitted all titles,
and gives only the name of the emperor. Even in this point the
consistency of his style is remarkable. Orosius gives the date of
the edict of Claudius. We do not know where he got his informa
tion ; there is, however, no reason for doubting its accuracy.

* For further references to general history and matters connected
with heathen cultus, cf. the Chiliarch Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26),
the centurion Julius (xxvii. 1) ; the aire ipa IroXt/c^ (x. 1), and the
ffiretpa. Ze/icwTTj (xivii. 1) note the coincidence; the Epicureans
and Stoics (xvii. 18 ; we are surprised that no mention is made of
the Academicians ; did the author intend to represent them as not
opposed to St. Paul ?) ; the Areopagus (xvii. 19) ; Dionysius tho

6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

It cannot therefore be shown that St. Luke was
influenced by a chronological interest in any of the
few passages wherein he produces what is practically
chronological material from contemporary history.
Such a passage as St. Luke in. 1, wherein the chrono
logical situation is scientifically determined, is to be
found nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles. More
over, there is no difference here between the treatment
of the history of Christianity in the Diaspora and
in Palestine.

II. Exact statements of years, months, and days.

Dates of years and months occur only in the
following passages : l

xi. 26. St. Barnabas and St. Paul abide a full year
(eviavrov o\ov) in Antioch (fostering the youthful
Church).

xvii. 2. On three Sabbath days (enl a-a(3(3ara. rpta)
St. Paul preached in the synagogue at Thessalonica,
and was therefore nearly a month in that city.

xviii. 11. St. Paul on his first visit to Corinth
remained there a year and six months (eviavrov KOI

Areopagite (xvii. 34) ; the ffTparriyol in Philippi (xvi. 20) ; the
politarchs in Thessalonica (xvii. 6) ; the Asiarchs (xix. 31) ; the
school of Tyrannus (xix. 9) ; the ypafinaTevs (xix. 35) ; the ayopaioi
KO.L avdviraroi (xix. 38) ; and the IPVO/^OJ ^KKX-rjaia in Ephesus
(xix. 39) ; Zeus and Hermes (xiv. 12) ; the great Artemis (xix. 27) ;
the TriXis vewicdpos (xix. 35) ; Dike (xxviii. 4) ; the Dioscuri (xxviii.
11) ; the Unknown God in Athens (xvii. 23). Each trait is correct
and true to its situation.

1 Passages wherein the years of duration of disease are given
are left out of consideration. Vide iv. 22 and ix. 33.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 7

xix. 8. St. Paul on his visit to Ephesus taught for
three months (eVI /x^ra? r^ef?) in the synagogue
there, and then

xix. 10. he taught for two years (eVt em $uo) in
the school of Tyrannus in the same city. These two
periods together are described in

xx. 31. as making up a period of three years

xx. 3. St. Paul made a second stay of three
months (7ro/o-a? /iJ/ra? rpei?) in Greece (Corinth).

[xxiv. 10. Felix at the time that St. Paul first
appeared before him had been procurator in Judaea
for many years (e/c TTO\\WV ero&gt;i/).]

[xxiv. 17. St. Paul, after the lapse of several years
((V erwv TrXe(ojwi ), had again returned to Jerusalem,
bringing alms.]

xxiv. 27. After two years (StcTias TrXrjpwOela-t]^
reckoned from St. Paul s first hearing Felix was
replaced by Festus. 1

1 Wellhauscn (Nachr. d. K. Geselhch. d. Wissensch. z. Gdttiiigen,12.
Jan. 1907, s. 8/. ) makes the following remarks on this passage:

" Aiert a is generally referred to the stay of St. Paul in Jerusalem
(read : Cajsarea), and as a necessary consequence it is considered
characteristic of the narrative of St. Luke that out of a period of
the apostolic ministry of St. Paul, lasting more than two years, he
should only have been able to tell us of the progress of the trial
of the Apostle. The hypothesis of a cessation of two years in the
consecutive and consistent course of the trial, which naturally and
necessarily forms the proper subject of the narrative, is however
rather characteristic of the exegetes, who one and all hang on
like bulldogs to only a single exegetical possibility. It is just as
possible that the words quoted refer to the departure of Felix from
office at the end of two years. This interpretation is indeed the
first that suggests itself, and has the advantage of disposing of
the absurd hiatus in the trial of St. Paul. The exegetes have

8 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

XXViii. 11. After three months (/xera rpeis
St. Paul left the island of Malta.

xxviii. 30. St. Paul abode in Rome two full years
(Sierlav oXyv) in his own hired lodging.

We have in addition the following dates by days :

i. 3. Our Lord manifested Himself for forty days
(Si ) jfji.p(Jov rea-arapaKOVTo) after His Resurrection.

[ix. 9. Saul was blind for three days
Tpcis*) after Christ had appeared to him.]

x. 30. Cornelius had the vision three days (OLTTO
rerdprtis y/uepas) before St. Peter s visit to him.

XX. 6. Within five days (a^pi t]/j.epwv Treyre) we
came from Philippi to Troas.

XX. 6. Seven days (ij/uepas eTrrct) we abode in
Troas.

probably allowed themselves to be led away by the TroXXa fry of
xxiv. 10. As if St. Luke in his discourses cared for historical
exactitude and not rather for anything that suited his purpose!
lie constantly contradicts himself even when his speakers give
a rhetorical summary of events described in the narrative (? ?).
In xxiv. 10, however, there is no need to suppose that he thought
of xxiv. 27. It is not my business to investigate whether Felix
was really superseded so early as the end of 54 or the beginning
of A.D. 55."

So far as I know, Wcllhausen has had no predecessor in his
interpretation which in my opinion will not stand investigation;
for (1) St. Paul, not Felix, is here the principal figure. It would
be singular, and it is not suggested by the context or by the
general procedure of St. Luke, that the author should have
thought it necessary to state the time during which a procurator
held office. (2) The preceding words, 616 KCU 6 &lt;?7Xi irvKvbrepov
rbv llavXov /j.fTaire[j.ir6/j.evos ufj.t\fi avrf form an excellent intro
duction to the statement that this lasted for a somewhat long
time, while they are out of any connection with the supposed
statement concerning the length of Felix s term of office. (3)

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 9

XXi. 4. Seven days (tjfiepa? eTrra) we abode in
Tyre.

XXi. 7. One day (fj/jiepav niav) we abode in
Ptolenmis.

xxiv. 1. After five days (/xera TreVre ^epa?),
reckoned from the conveyance of St. Paul to Caesarea,
the high-priest Ananias came thither.

xxiv. 11. There are not more than twelve days (ov
TrAe/cuy eicriv /not rj/j.fpai &lt;5&lt;*)&lt;Wa), says St. Paul, since
I came to Jerusalem.

xxv. 1. Three days after his entry into office (/uera
^oa?) Festus came to Jerusalem.

xxv. 6. After not more than eight to ten days
ov TrXe/ou? OKTO) r] Sena) Festus returned back
to Casarea.

XXVii. 27. The fourteenth night
Kdrt] vvQ in the raging storm (XXVii. 33).

Felix was in office longer than two years there can be no doubt
upon this point and St. Luke himself says as much a few verses
previously. It is somewhat out of place to charge him unneces
sarily with such an extraordinary instance of discrepancy. Moreover,
(4) Sieria cannot be regarded as the general technical expression
for the term of office of a procurator (so that Ster/as wX^pw Ma-jji
would simply mean "after the end of his term of office"); for
the term of office was not at that period fixed (vide Hirschfeld,
Die kaiserl. Verwaltungsbcamtcn, 2 Aitfl., 1905, 8. 445 ff. ), and
Sitria is found a few chapters later (xxviii. 30) in its ordinary
sense. (5) There is no justification for speaking of an absurd
hiatus in the trial of St. Paul as being implied by the traditional
interpretation, for when St. Luke gives a date in years he never
tells us what details occurred within this period, but leaves it
to the reader to derive this information from the context, that is,
from his general statement concerning the situation of the
Apostle. Therefore the statement in xxiv. 27, when referred to
St. Paul, is in conformity with the other statements giving the
years of the Apostle s stay in great cities (vide supra).

10 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

XXViii. 7. For three days (rpei? q/uiepas) Publius
entertained St. Paul at Malta.

XXViii. 12. For three days (rpets f]/j.epa&lt;i) we abode
at Syracuse.

XXViii. 13. After one day (/uera /xtW fj/Jiepav) we
sailed from Rhegium.

XXViii. 13. In two days (SevrepatoC) we came to
Puteoli.

XXViii. 14. For seven days (fifiepas CTTTOL} we abode
with the brethren in Puteoli.

xxviii. 17. Three days after his arrival in Rome
(yuera r/fJiepas rpeis) St. Paul invited the leaders of
the Jews in that city to an interview.

We add lastly the passages in which the next day is
mentioned :

x. 9 ...

x. 23 ...

x. 24 . . .

xiv. 20 . . .

xx. 7 ...

xxi. 8 ...

xxii. 30 ...

xxiii. 32 ...

xxv. (5 ...

xxv. 23 ...

iv. 3 . . .

iv. 5 . . .

[xxiii. ]5]. . . . [ TJ atipicv (ijtitpa)

xxiii. 20 . . .

xxv. 22 ...

[vii.2G] ... .^1

xvi. 11 .... I

xx. 15 . . . . f 7) tTriovcri) (also with rj/j.^pa or n )

xxi. 18 . . .
xxiii. 11

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 11

xx. 15 ... -1

xxi. 26 .... I Tj ^x ^"^ ( xx ^ 26 with r]/j.fpa, xiii. 44
[xiii. 44. Heading j with &lt;rdppa.Tov)
uncertain] . J

x1 i] irjt wtpa (in xxvii. 18 followed

From these lists we derive the following con
clusions :

1. Exact statements of longer periods of time
occurring in this book refer exclusively to the dura
tion of the stay or the ministry of St. Paul in some
important place : St. Paul was a full year in Antioch,
nearly a month in Thessalonica, eighteen months in
Corinth, two years and three months (thus a rpteria)
in Ephesus, three months in Greece (on his second
visit), two years (Sieria) in Csesarea in prison, [three
months in Malta], and two full years (Sieriav 6\t]v)
in Rome. 1 The duration of the ministry of the
Apostle in these places was so important to St. Luke
that he has expressly mentioned it. For questions
connected with the inner development of the Christian
communities, so far as these had nothing to do with the
Jews and heathen, he in his book evidently betrays no
interest ; but the length of time during which these
communities had the good fortune to see the Apostle
in their midst is a matter in which he had, and he

i The two instances which I have included above among the
years and months, but in brackets, do not come into account ; for
in xxiv. 10, 17 only passing mention is made of " several years "
without any closer determination of the periods,

12 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

shows, the most lively interest. For ascertaining the
absolute chronology of the Acts these exact statements,
together with the references to contemporary history,
afford almost the only material we can use.

With these ten notices concerning a lengthy ministry
of St. Paul in definite localities are connected the five
notices of similar character wherein it is a question
only of a period of days : seven days we abode in
Troas, seven days in Tyre, a day in Ptolemais ; ten
days was the length of St. Paul s last visit to Jeru
salem ; seven days we abode in Puteoli (brethren
were found in all these places).

2. But of these five notices, four and of the
ten, one belong to another connection, namely, to
the diary of the " we "-account. Here in twenty-
one instances dates are given in days (including one
instance of like character the stay in Malta where
the duration is given in months vide supra), and
within this " we "-account the times spent in the
different stages of the journey are to the author seem
ingly of equal importance with the times spent in
visits at various places. 1 From chap. XX. 6 until
the arrival in Jerusalem it is possible to make a
connected calculation of the time spent. According
to XX. 6 the start was made from Philippi after
the days of unleavened bread, and St. Paul wished
to be in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. He
had therefore about 44 days for his journey. The

1 The passage, chap, xxvii. 12, should also be added to the
chronological passage of the " we "-account. We are here told
that it was at the beginning of winter that the ship touched at
Crete on the voyage to Rome.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 13

journey from Philippi to Troas occupied 5 days,
7 days were spent in Troas, x days in the voyage to
Mitylene, 1 day at Chios, 1 day to Sanios, 1 day to
Miletus, x days in Miletus, 1 day to Cos, 1 day to
Rhodes, x days to Patara, x days from Patara
to Tyre, 7 days in Tyre, 1 day to Ptolemais, 1 day
in Ptolemais, 1 day to Csesarea, " several " days in
Cassarea, x days in the journey from Caesarea to
Jerusalem. Thus a period of 27 days is given, while
about 17 days are left for the six indefinite periods.
The voyage from Troas to Mitylene would probably
last one day ; in Miletus also St. Paul probably halted
for only one day, otherwise he could have gone him
self to Ephesus ; from Rhodes to Patara would take
one day ; from Patara to Tyre the voyage would last
at least five days (Chrysostom), from Caesarea to
Jerusalem would be a journey of two days. Thus six
to seven days are left for the stay in Caesarea. We
are not, of course, expressly told that St. Paul really
reached Jerusalem in time for the feast ; but we may
assume this as probable (Weiss contests this point;
but in this case would it have been thought worth
while to mention St. Paul s plan in the narrative ?).
In Jerusalem St. Paul stayed scarcely a week, then he
was conveyed to Ca\sarea. It is, moreover, worthy of
note that St. Luke did not himself count up the days,
otherwise he would not have left so many items of
the sum indefinite.

3. In addition to these two great groups of chrono
logical statements there still remains two smaller
groups, namely, the four dates by days in the story
of Cornelius (chap, x.) these are insignificant and

14 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

belong to the type of narrative l and the fourteen
(13) important dates by days referring to the (last)
stay in Jerusalem and in Caesarea (xxi. 26 xxvi. 32).
4. The following isolated chronological statements
are found in the book . (1) that our Lord allowed
Himself to be seen for forty days after His Resurrec
tion (i. 3) ; (2) that St. Peter and St. John remained
in prison until the next morning (iv. 3, 5) ; (3) that
St. Paul was blind for three days after his vision
(ix. 9) ; (4) the notice of the next Sabbath and the
next day in xiii. 44 and xiv. 20 ; (5) the information
that St. Paul invited the leaders of the Jews in Home
to an interview three days after his arrival (xxviii.
17). Of these (2), (3), and (4) are unimportant ;
(5) is closely connected with the dates by days in the
" we "-account, which directly precedes it ; (1), which
is found nowhere else in the contemporary literature
its occurrence in later literature is dependent upon
this passage can only be derived from Messianic
legend, and is certainly manufactured, but not by
St. Luke himself. 2

1 When one carefully compares the style of this narrative with
the narratives of occurrences in Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and
other places, one cannot but notice that St. Luke is in the latter
cases writing as an eye-witness or at very good second-hand ;
whereas in the former case he follows a tradition that had been
already worked up and had already lost many concrete traits,
though some here and there had still been preserved.

2 The manner in which St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xv. of the visions
of the Risen Christ, including among them that to himself, makes
it quite improbable that he knew of or, if he did, believed in this
period of forty days ; his record is, moreover, quite opposed to
St. Luke s statement: " iv TroXXoZj TeK/nypioLS dtrrai Ofj.fvo^ avroa /ecu
\tyuv ra Kfpl rrjs /Scto-iXe/as rov 0eoD." " Forty days " is a significant
sacred number (cf. the "forty days" of temptation in the wilder
ness). One only wonders that the period was not extended to

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 15

As we now survey all these chronological state
ments, grouped as we have placed them, they impress
us most favourably, and show that from the stand
point of the chronologist this historical work can
scarcely be put on a level with the apocryphal Acts
and other such books of fables. 1 Where St. Luke
was not himself present, and therefore could not give
dates in days, he contents h nnself with ascertaining and
recording the length of St. PauPs stay in the centres of
his activity by years and months. Otherwise he refrains
almost entirely from giving direct chronological informa
tion. The only exception is formed by the dates by
days in the description of the last stay in Jerusalem
and in Caesarea; but (1) it is possible that St. Luke
himself was here an eye-witness; (2) these items of
information give no cause for objection. If St. Luke
himself was not present which is to me probable 2
then for this period he must have had excellent
records at his disposal. 8 As for the information con-
Pentecost (vide infra), so that an hiatus might have been avoided.
We may assume that underlying the tradition of the forty days
there is this amount of truth, namely, that within this period (or
just at its close) the return of the disciples from Galilee to Jeru
salem really took place. The visions at Jerusalem, which occurred
after this but before Pentecost, were transferred by later legend
into the Easter octave.

i Therefore also the " we " of the Acts of the Apostles has nothing
whatever to do with the artificial stylistic " we " in the later Acts
of Apostles and martyrs. In particular instances the former " we"
may have served as a model for this class of novels with a religious
purpose.

* Except that St. Luke came again to Cassarea during the time
of Festus.

* This naturally does not cover the trustworthiness of the dis
courses, which are especially numerous in this section of the work,
and of several other details.

16 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

cerning the duration of the longer visits to the chief
centres presupposing careful investigation on the part
of St. Luke we can only here and there, and that
inadequately, control its accuracy from the Epistles
of St. Paul. 1 So far, however, as the test can be ap
plied, all the chronological statements pass muster. 2
All of them, or almost all of them, refer to the times
of the author s partnership with St. Paul in the
mission and to the periods lying between. In the
former he reckons by days, in the latter by years and
months ; elsewhere i.e. in the whole first half of
the book he almost entirely refrains from giving
dates. What condition of things could we wish for
that would inspire us with greater confidence in the
writer ? 3

1 Still less are we able to exercise control over the dates given
in the " we "-account ; however, their whole character is such as
to render control unnecessary.

2 Some would conclude from the Epistles to the Thessalonians
that St. Paul must have stayed in the capital of Macedonia for a
longer time than is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. But even
here there is no compelling reason for questioning the statement
of the Acts.

3 For completeness sake let us cast another glance over the
reference to days and hours. The information that the events
recorded happened in the night was self-evident in the case of
visions in dreams, xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, and xxvii. 23 (dia rfjs
VVKTOS, ev vvKTl, rfj eTTiovar) vvKri and Tavrfj ry wart) ; in the case of
the miraculous occurrences in prison, v. 17, xii. 6, and xvi. 25, 33
(5icl TT)S WKT6s, rrj WKrl ^Kelvy, Kara rb fj.e&lt;rovuKTiov, and ei&gt; ^Kfivy r-g
Hipq. rrfs VVKTOS) ; and in the case of the secret arrangements in
Damascus, ix. 25 (VVKTOS), xvii. 10 in Thessalonica (5ia VVKTOS), and
xxiii. 23, 31 in Jerusalem (dirb rpiTTjs &pas 1-175 VVKTOS and dia. vvKr6s).
Elsewhere it is only in the " we "-account (the story of the ship
wreck) that mention is made of the fourteenth night and midnight
(xxvii. 27, Kara. p.taov TTJS VVKTOS), and that we are told concerning

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 17

But now for the other side of the picture ! From
this condition of things no manufactured dates !
it follows that the history of the Primitive Com
munity of Jerusalem and of the earliest period of
the mission in Palestine is practically destitute of
chronology. Only two points stand out in this desolate
chronological plain, and are therefore worthy of special
notice and consideration. These are the date of St.
Paids first and fundamentally important visit to Antioch?

St. Paul s sermon in Troas that it lasted ^XP 1 ufaowKrlov (xx. 7),
indeed even &xpt avy-fjs (xx. 11). In xxviii. 23 we are informed that
the meeting in Rome in which St. Paul delivered his apology before
the Jews lasted a-rrb irpwi ws iffirtpas ; in xxii. 6 and xxvi. 13 it is
recorded that St. Paul saw the vision of Christ irepi fj.ctrijfj.ftptav and
yfjitpas /ifVijs respectively (this detail does not occur in ix. 3) ; and
in iv. 3 we hear that the imprisonment of the Apostles took place in
the evening ; lastly, in v. 21, that the Apostles when set free entered
into the Temple inrb TOV 6p0pov both statements almost necessarily
follow from the context. As for the hours, upa is used pleonastically,
or at least not in a strictly technical sense, in x. 30 (fj-txp 1 TO^TT;? TTJJ
W/HZJ), xvi. 18 (01)75 TTJ upa), xvi. 33 (t&gt; tue ivy rrj upa), and xxii. 13
(avrrj TJJ upa). Signifying hour of prayer, upa occurs in iii. 1 (tirl
T. upav T. irpofffvxfjs T. Ivvdr^v), x. 3, 30 (uffel upav ivvo.rt\v r. -fyu^oaj
and ivo.TT)v respectively), and x. 9 (irepi wpav SKT^V). Otherwise only
in four places, namely, ii. 15 (the Pentecostal miracle happened at
the third hour of the day ; this is expressly recorded in order to
refute the calumnious charge that the Apostles were intoxicated),
v. 7 (Sapphira s act of deceit and her sudden death followed three
hours after that of her husband), xix. 34 (the Ephesians cried out,
M upas 5i o), and xxiii. 23 (this passage is given above). These
accounts certainly are not all of them quite trustworthy ; yet there
is in them no trace of systematic tendency, nor, where they have
something of the conventional about them, do they go beyond the
literary expedients of which the best historical writers of antiquity
availed themselves.

1 The fact that this notice is unique in the first half of the book
suggests that the account of the mission in Antioch, in regard to
its source, either belongs to the accounts of the second half or is
not inferior to them in value.

18 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

and the reference to the famine under Claudius together
with the reference to Herod Agrippa. 1 We have, there
fore, no certainty whether the author has been able
to give us the events of the first period in their
correct order, 2 and it is most difficult to discover the
actual date of each occurrence. In regard to the
chronological order one for instance may, indeed
must, question whether the election of an apostle (if
it took place at all and in the manner recorded in
the Acts) fell within the first forty days ; whether the
different accounts of the imprisonment of apostles are
to be distinguished from one another ; when it was
that the conversion of St. Paul took place ; when the
conversion of the Samaritans (we are told that whole
villages were to a great extent Christianised, viii. 25) ;
when the mission of St. Philip to the coastland ;
when it was that Cornelius was converted ; when it
was that the first Gentile Christian community was
founded in Antioch ; and above all, whether the

1 This notice affords us the best datum for the absolute chrono
logy of the first half of the Apostolic epoch. The persecution of
the Apostles by Herod Agrippa (king of Judea A.D. 41-44), which
was shortly followed by the death of the king, took place not long
before the year A.D. 44, the year of Herod s death. At that time
the Apostles left Jerusalem. Now a very ancient tradition (see my
Chronologic, I. s. 243 /.) reports that the Apostles remained twelve
years in Jerusalem in accordance with a command given by our
Lord. The command was undoubtedly invented in order to justify
the departure of the Apostles in the twelfth year. It brings us to
the year A.D. 42, a calculation which is confirmed by Acts xii. 1 ff.
17: "Peter departed to another place"; while in viii. 1 stress is
laid upon the fact that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem during
the first persecution.

2 In v. 36 (Theudas) there probably lies a gross chronological
error.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 19

journey of St. Paul to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25) is
rightly distinguished from the journey of chap. xv.
But even if in these cases there is more that is
questionable or erroneous than the average critic is
accustomed to assume, 1 the author would not therefore
be deserving of severe blame ; for he has not pre
tended to more knowledge than he possesses, but has
clearly told us where alone in his narrative dates
stood at his disposal. Before, however, we can give
a h nal verdict on his chronological procedure, it is
also necessary both to examine the instances where he
refers to Festivals, and to investigate his chronological
statements of an indefinite character.

III. References to Festivals.

From the chronological point of view it is the
greatest paradox in the Acts of the Apostles that
in this book, written by a Greek for another Greek
of high position, 2 it not infrequently occurs that
Jewish feasts are referred to, and are presupposed as
well known. These references do not come from the
sources of the work, or at least only in part, for they
are just as numerous in the second half as in the first
half of the Acts, and are not absent even from the
" wc-sections." We are therefore led to conclude

1 In my opinion this is not the case.

1 That this Greek noble bore the name of Theophilus from his
birth is possible, but not probable. Either St. Luke in the address
has given to him a lofty spiritual title side by side with his high
worldly title " Kpdria-rot," or he himself as a Christian had taken
the name " Theophilus," just as a few decades later the Christian
Ignatius took the name " Theophorus."

20 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that St. Luke had already, before his conversion to
Christianity, come into close touch with the Judaism
of the Diaspora, 1 and that he could presuppose a like
acquaintance in the person to whom he addressed his
work and in the majority of his readers. This tends to
confirm a statement once made by Renan that in the
Apostolic epoch there could have been only a few
Gentile Christians who, before they became Christians,
had not come into touch with Judaism.

The passages which here come under consideration
are the following : 2

i. 12. Distance is given in terms of a " Sabbath
day s journey " ; the knowledge of the length of this
standard is therefore presupposed.

XX. 7. The Christian sacred day is called 17 fj.la
T)V arapftdrwv (is thus named by reference to the
Jewish sacred day).

ii. 1 and XX. 16. r\ fj/j.epa Trjs Trerra/cocrn/? it is
presupposed that it is known at what time the feast
of Pentecost fell. 3

1 His by no means contemptible knowledge of the Old Testament
lends additional probability to this conclusion.

2 We must naturally exclude those passages where it is recorded
that St. Paul came into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and
taught there. Every reader would certainly be acquainted with the
" Sabbath," and the record concerning St. Paul s preaching on the
Sabbath day in the synagogue (at the beginning of his ministry in
every city) is to be accepted as trustworthy, though some critics of
the Acts think otherwise, seeing especially that the " we "-account
gives the same tradition (x?i. 13).

3 The wording of ii. 1 is, moreover, of such a character that there
is room for doubt whether the author intended to say that the
pouring forth of the Spirit occurred on the day of Pentecost itself.
It is more natural to suppose that it occurred shortly before this
day. The matter is perhaps purposely left indefinite.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 21

xii. 3 and XX. 6. yvav fji^epai TWV a.Tv/j.u&gt;v and
f^Tr\ev&lt;ra/uLv fj.era ret? ij/mepas TU&gt;I&gt; a(i fj.MV it is not
s;iid, and is therefore assumed to be generally known,
when these days fall.

xii. 4. Herod intended to deliver St. Peter to the
people fjiera TO Trda-^a the time of the Passover is
thus known.

XXVii. 9. orro9 ?j$t) Tri&lt;T&lt;pa\ovs TOU TrXoo? Sia TO KOI
T*]i&gt; wjorai &gt; i$t] Trapf\ri\vQcvai the fast of the great
Day of Atonement is meant ; the author s recourse to
the Jewish Festival-calendar is here especially remark
able ; even a Gentile in becoming a Christian at first
accepted, along with Christianity, a slice of Judaism.

xxi. 23, 27. at CTTTCI r//uLepai (rov ayvicr/nou) the
readers know that a Jewish vow of this kind lasted
seven days. 1

In regard to the trustworthiness of these dates
given in terms of the Jewish Festival-calendar and in
the most different contexts, that of ii. 1 alone can
give cause for doubt.

Besides the consideration of these passages it is
necessary to point out the extensive use that is made
in this book of the word " wepai " in all kinds of
chronological notices. This use is, so far as I
know, contrary to Greek idiom. In St. Luke s
gospel tj/uepa and rj^epai are found eighty-four times,
in the Acts ninety-four times (in St. Matthew forty-
six times, in St. Mark twenty-eight times, in St. John

1 Perhaps mention might also be made here of v. 37 (eV r. y
diro-ypa^?}*) ; jet a reference to St. Luke ii. 1 /. is probably intended
here. Note also the Hebraic vJ/cra &lt;cal rj^pay, xx. 31, xxvi. 7 (but
7t KO.I vvKrfa stands in ix. 24).

22 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

thirty-one times). The numerous constructions in
which the word stands are in many cases Hebraic, or
rather imitated from the Greek of the Septuagint.
By this means, and moreover by other similar
expedients which must have been quite customary
with him, St. Luke has probably purposely given
his style a Biblical character. We shall at once
make acquaintance with a portion of these passages
as we now turn to consider his indefinite chrono
logical notices. 1

IV. Indefinite Dates.

\. 5. Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ov
yuera TroXXa? rj/uepas in a few weeks 1 time.

i. 15. ev TOU? f//j.epai$ Tavrais in the days between
the Ascension and Pentecost, St. Peter stood up and
proposed the completion of the number of the
Apostles.

v. 36. irpo TOVTWV Tfiov qfjLepwv (quite indefinite in
regard to the length of the time meaning " before
this our time " ) Theudas rose up.

vi. 1. ev TCI?? y/u.epais raurat? ( = at that time; it
is more closely defined by irXvOvvovruiv TUII&gt; /maByTuiv)
arose a dispute between the Hebrews and the Helle
nists in the Primitive Community. 2

1 Compare, moreover, the word "77/^/30. " in a concordance.

2 Of. in St. Stephen s speech, vii. 41 : ev rcus ^ue pcus ^/ceiVcus ifj.oa\o-
iroir&lt;ffav. Note also that St. Peter in his speech (xv. 7) describes
the conversion of Cornelius as having taken place d&lt;/&gt; Tjp.epuv
apxaluv, and that Mnason in the we-account (xxi. 16) is called an

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 23

viii. 11. tVai fo xpov&lt;p (* e probably for many years)
had Simon Magus practised his sorceries in Samaria.

ix. 19. St. Paul, after his conversion, continued
with the brethren of Damascus j/yutyx*? Ttra f, and
began at once his active ministry. 1

ix. 23. 0)9 e7r\r]poOi&gt;TO fjiJ.epa.1 iKai ai (it may have
been years) the Jews of Damascus prepared a plot
against St. Paul.

ix. 37. ev TO?? tjfjxpatf eKVai? (i.f- when St. Peter
was staying in Lydda) it happened that the disciple
Tabitha died in Joppa.

ix. 43. St. Peter abode in Joppa with a tanner
named Simon, ri/u.epa$ iKavds (as in viii. 11 and ix. 23
it may have been for years).

x. 48. St. Peter accepted an invitation to stay in
Ca-sarea, rifjiepas Ttra? (i.e. a few days, vide ix. 19).

xi. 27. eV rauTcu9 TCUS tu epais, namely, at the time
of the foundation of the Church of Antioch, or more
exactly, at the time when St. Barnabas and St. Paul
were working there. 2

xii. 1. KO.T etceivov Se TOV Kaipov namely, at the
time when what had been narrated in chap. xi. took
place Herod turned against the Church. 3

1 As it is said in ix. 23 that his stay in Damascus lasted T^paj
J/cards, the above passage must be paraphrased as follows : " After
a few days, which he spent in the company of the disciples in
Damascus, he began at once to preach as a missionary."

* Ev ravraa TCUJ -rjfjLtpais cannot possibly refer to verse 26 s , but
only to 20.

3 The passage introduced by these words is not an interpolation
without chronological reference, as Weiss thinks ; for the expres
sion KO.T txttvov rbv naip6i&gt; need not refer to the time of the founda
tion of the Antiochean Church in the strictest sense of the word,
but refers to the whole early history of that community so far as it
had been narrated.

24 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xiii. 31. Our Lord showed Himself after His
Resurrection ewl ri/mepay TrAe/ou?, i.e. forty days.

xiv. 3. IKO.VOV yj)6vov St. Barnabas and St. Paul
worked in Iconium (see above on viii. 11, ix. 23,
and ix. 43).

xiv. 28. -ftpovov OVK oXtyov they then abode in
Antioch (no doubt a shorter time than iicavov %pdvov
is intended).

xv. 33. 7roo/&lt;rai/Te? ^povov (quite indefinite)
Judas and Silas in Antioch.

xv. 35. IlauAo? K. Bapi/a/3a? $ierpi(3ov ev ^Avrio^eia
(without any mention of time as in xii. 19).

xv. 36. yuera $e rivas fj/j- epas i.e. (vide ix. 19, x. 48)
after a few days St. Paul proposed to St. Barnabas
that they should join in a fresh missionary journey
(preceded by the narrative of the Council of Jeru
salem and the notice of the stay of St. Paul and
St. Barnabas in Antioch : this stay must, therefore,
have been quite a short one).

xvi. 12. We abode in Philippi rjfj.epa? rivas thus
only a few days. 1

xvi. 18. The possessed woman cried after us eiri

xviii. 1. /Hera Tavra, i.e. after his stay in Athens
St. Paul came to Corinth.

xviii. 2. Trpoa-cpdra)? Aquila had come from Rome
to Corinth.

xviii. 18. After the trial St. Paul remained yet
j/ytie lOa? //cam? in Corinth, thus a long time (vide ix. 23,
43 ; viii. 11 ; xiv. 3).

1 Weiss tries to show that this does riot refer to the whole time
of their stay in Philippi ; but I do not think he proves his point.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 25

xviii. 23. St. Paul stayed (the third time)

a 7ro/&lt;ra9 (vide xv. 33) in Antioch.

xix. 22. St. Paul abode yet some time (yj&gt;6vov) in
Asia l (vide xv. 33 ; xviii. 23).

xix. 23. Kara TOV Kaipov e/ce^ov, namely in the
last days of St. Paul s stay in Ephesus, when his
departure had been already settled, a riot broke
out.

xxi. 10. We abode in Caesarea ri/mepa? 7rXe/ou?.

XXi. 15. yuera ^e ray t^j-epa? raJra? (i.e. after the
stay in Caesarea) we started for Jerusalem.

xxi. 38. St. Paul is asked whether he was not the
Egyptian who irpo TOVTWV TWV q/mepwv (vide v. 36),
rose up as a deceiver of the people.

xxiv. 24. /uera Se r^J-epa? TIVU$ (thus after a few
days, vide ix. 19 ; x. 48 ; xv. 36 ; xvi. 12), Felix
ordered St. Paul to be called that he might hear
him concerning Christ.

xxv. 13. fj/jiepwv &lt;5e Stayei Oju.evwv TIVUIV (cf. xxiv.
24), came Agrippa and Bernice to Caesarea.

xxv. 14. They remained there f^ epas TrXet ou?.

XXVii. 7. ey iKavais &lt;5e rnj.epa.is (3pa$u7r\oovvTe$, we
arrived with difficulty at Crete (probably several
weeks, vide ix. 23, 43 ; xviii. 18).

XXVii. 9. IKO.VOV (5e xpovov SiayevojU-evov, we loosed
from Crete (vide XXVii. 7, viii. 11, xiv. 3).

XXVii. 14. yuer ov TroXu, the tempest arose.

XXVii. 20. Neither the sun nor the stars appeared,

[XXViii. 6. eTTt TTO\V, they expected that St. Paul

1 This is preceded in xix. 21 by the quite indefinite wj 64
r\-r]pu6r] ravra (the successful progress of the mission in Ephesus)

26 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

would fall down dead after being bitten by the
snake. 1 ]

In the first place, it is an important point in
favour of the identity of the author of the we-
account with the author of the whole work, that
indefinite chronological notices are of no rarer occur
rence in the we-account than in the rest of the work,
nor are they different in form. This circumstance
will be considered in Appendix I. Next we must
distinguish those passages, where the fact that the
time is not defined is by no means remarkable, from
those where it seems at first sight strange. Of the
former we may at once simply dismiss the passages
i. 5; v. 36; viii. 11; ix. 37; xiii. 31; xvi. 18;
xviii. 2 ; xxi. 38 ; xxvii. 7, 9, 14, 20 ; xxviii. 6 ; in
some of these instances the author could have given
us more accurate information had he wished it, in
others the context required or allowed only a general
reference to time. But from the remaining passages
we may not as a rule argue ignorance on the part
of the author. Thus the duration of the stay at
Philippi and in Caesarea (xvi. 12 ; xxi. 10, 15) is
only given indefinitely, although the author, if he
had wished it we are here in the we-account could

1 rore is found 21 times in the Acts (including 4 occurrences in
the " we "-sections). It has, however, in no ease chronological
significance in the strict sense of the word. In xvii. 14,
it is combined with evQews, in xxvii. 21, it follows a genitive
absolute, in xxviii. 1 a participle (5ia&lt;ru9evTes r6re tTrtyj&gt;ujj.ft&gt;).
EvOtus, evBvs (the latter only in x. 16) is not very frequent in the
Acts ; it occurs 10 times (including KO.I etf^ws 5 times). It is a
favourite word in stories of miracles and visions (ix. 18, 34 ;
x. 16 ; xii. 10 ; xvi. 10) ; elsewhere only in ix. 20 ; xvii. 10, 14 ;
xxi. 30 ; xxii. 29.

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA 27

have afforded us more accurate dates. Why he has
not done so we are unable to say. It should, how
ever, be noticed that in reference to the stay in
Philippi he uses the expression tj/j.kpa&lt;i rtvds, in
reference to the stay in Caesarea the words y/mepas
7rXe/ou?, and again in the we-account (XXVii. 7, 9)
he speaks of tVarcu tjftepai (IKO.VOV XjOoVov). 1 If we
find the same distinctions in statements of time also
made outside the we-account, we may assume with a
certain degree of probability that they are not chosen
arbitrarily, but as is certain in the case of the we-
account rest upon more accurate information than
is clearly expressed. Accordingly when we are told
(ix. 43) that St. Peter remained in Joppa ^/nepa^
iKavds, but in Ca?sarea (x. 48) Sj/mepa? Tivds (in the
former place he had his abode for the time being,
at the latter he was only on a visit), again (ix. 19)
that St. Paul had already begun his missionary
preaching in the synagogues jj/zepa? rtvds after his
conversion, while the whole period of his activity
in Damascus lasted qju.epai ucavai (ix. 23), again that
St. Paul was in Iconiuui (xiv. 3) ucavov xpovov, in
Antioch for the second time (xiv. 28) -^povov OVK
in Antioch for the third and fourth times

1 lKav6s in chronological statements occurs in the New Testa
ment only in the Lukan writings, namely, twice in the gospel
(viii. 27 ; xx. 9) and seven times in the Acts (including two occur
rences in the we-sections). Combined with xp vot it appears in St.
Luke viii. 27 ; xx. 9 ; with xpv* in Acts viii. 11 ; xiv. 3 ; xxvii. 9 ;
with ri^pat in Acts ix. 23, 43 ; xviii. 18 ; xxvii. 7. The approxi
mate length of the time indicated by luavfa is always to be
understood from the context. It may be years (viii. 11 ; ix. 23;
if.. 43 [7] ; xiv. 3[?j), but also only weeks (xxvii. 7, 9).

28 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(xv. 36 and xviii. 23) rj/u.epa&lt;; nvd? and y^povov riva
respectively, and that he remained in Corinth (xviii.
18) yet q[j.epa&lt;; t/cava? after the trial, moreover, that
Felix summoned St. Paul before him (xxiv. 24) ^tera
jj/uepa? rivds, finally that Agrippa and Bernice came
to Caesarea (xxv. 13) fj/j-ep^v ($iaycvofj.ei&gt;(*)v Tii tiov after
the first appearance of St. Paul before Festus and
abode there (xxv. 14) TrActou? ij/mcpas in face of all
these instances we can scarcely regard the epithets
used with ri/mepas as meaningless, or as quite arbi
trarily chosen especially seeing that in several cases
we can prove that they have been most suitably
chosen rather we are led to suppose that St.
Luke l in these cases was in possession of good
information, even though it were not exact but only

1 It follows from Gal. i. 17 /. that the stay of St. Paul in
Damascus, including a journey into Arabia which came just at
the beginning, lasted three years. St. Luke says nothing of the
journey into Arabia ; probably it was of no importance or he had
no knowledge of it. St. Paul only mentions it in order to explain
that he, although he had taken a journey, had nevertheless not
journeyed to Jerusalem. That St. Paul soon (after Tjntpas rivds) began
his missionary work "in the synagogues," is not excluded by the
Galatians, for " in the synagogues" may well include those without
Damascus, and Arabia extended to the very gates of that city ;
moreover, the rj/mepai. iKavai of the Acts would correspond with the
three years of the Epistle. That St. Paul on his last visit to
Antioch could only have remained a short time can also be shown
to be probable from the epistles. It can also be shown that
the approximate chronological statements of the section dealing
with St. Paul, Felix, and Festus are correct, especially as many
definite dates are found side by side with them. It is strange that
in xv. 36 we read only of "some days" which St. Paul and St.
Barnabas spent at that time in Antioch, while it was during this
time some scholars place it earlier that the visit of St. Peter to
this city (Gal, ii, 1 1 jf. ) seems to have occurred.

approximate. 1 This supposition also may be extended
to the instances xviii. 1 and xix. 21-23 ; for the
description of the visit to Athens, taken in connec
tion with the context, makes it clear that St. Paul
made only a quite short stay in this city, a fact
which is confirmed by the Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians ; and likewise there was no need that exact
dates should be given in order to explain that the
events narrated in xix. 21^". happened at the end of
the long ministry in Ephesus.

Accordingly, there remain only four passages in
which the indefinite chronological statement possibly
or probably disguises inadequate knowledge, namely,
i. 15, vi. 1, xii. 1, xv. 33 (the date of the completion
of the College of Apostles and of the uprising of
the Hellenists ; the chronological relationship of the
Herodian persecution to the history of the planting
of Christianity in Antioch ; the length of the stay of
Judas and Silas in Antioch). This is a small number,
and we may accordingly maintain that the Acts of
the Apostles even in regard to its indefinite, and still
more in regard to its definite, chronological state
ments is, on the whole, a very respectable historical
work (in spite of its want of a chronological scheme).
In this respect it can very well hold its own when

1 Naturally in a number of these instances he may also have
possessed quite exact information, but did not consider it necessary
to impart it. Thus in xiii. 31 he says that our Lord after His
Resurrection showed Himself M r;/x&lt;?paj TrXe/ouj ; in an earliei
passage, however, he has given the more exact statement: 81
rjntpuv reaaoLpoLKovra. (i. 3). Also in i. 5 we read that the disciples
received the baptism of the Spirit, ov ^ierd iroXXds rat/raj i)/j.{pas,
and in ii. 1 the exact date is given.

30 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

compared with the historical works of that period.
That in point of chronology it leaves much to be
desired is a fact so obvious as to require no express
statement ; but if, for example, the narrative of the
so-called first missionary journey of St. Paul when
compared with that of the second and third journeys
leaves much to be desired in respect of chronological
data (though here also the chief stations are care
fully given), this circumstance is only a proof that
the author, though he generally shows such interest
in the times of duration of journeys and visits, did
not wish to say more than he could vouch for, and
has therefore kept silence on these points in this part
of his work. Our recognition of the trustworthiness of
the book is thus enhanced by a close investigation
of the procedure of the author in chronological ques
tions. In the case of a few incidents the narrative
is of a conventional type ; but as a whole it is, both
in accordance with the purpose of the writer and in
reality, a genuinely historical work.

APPENDIX I

The Consistency of the Form in which Chronological
Statements are given in the Acts

In order to establish the consistency of the chrono
logical expressions in the Acts, we shall do best to
start with the data given in the we-sections and to
compare with them those in the rest of the book.

XVi. 11, XX. 15, XXi. 18. T# f-iriova-u [^epn] (twice
elsewhere in the book).

XX. 7, XXi. 8. T[) e-jravpiov [&gt;}/mepa] (eight times
elsewhere in the book).

XX. 25. rj) e-^o/jievf] [t j/mepa] (vide xxi. 26).

xxi. 6, xxvii. 18. T e/&gt; [W/o] (vide xxv. 17).

xvi, 12. t]/jipa.&lt;i riva? (live times elsewhere in the
book).

xxvii. 7. fi/j.epas tVearaf (three times elsewhere in
the book).

XXVii. 20. ITT) TrAe/oya? q/jiepas (xiii. 31 : eVJ tjfJLe

XXi. 10. rjfjLfpa^ TrXetovs (elsewhere xxv. 4 ; xxiv. 11:
ov TrAe/oi/? y/JLepai i(B , xxv. 6 : ^/xeoa? ov TrAe/ou? i/, cf.
XXVli. 14 : /xer ov Tro\v, xviii. 20 : eVJ TrAe/ova -^povov\

XVi. 18. eVt TToAAay ///xe^oa? (i. 5 : ov /uera ?roAAu9
raJra? ^e^oa?).

XXi. 10 ; XXViil. 12, 14. eV/.uea-cu ^uepa? (vide
x. 48).

32 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

XVi. 12 ; XX. 6. Siarpifieiv wepa? (vide xxv. 14).
XXVii. 29, 33, 39. rj/j.epav ylvea-Qai (three times else
where in the book).

XXVii. 9. yjiovov Siayevo/mevov (vide xxv. 13 : rt/

XXVii. 9. t/cai/o? x/ooi oy (vide viii. 11 : iKavto
xiv. 3 : IKCIVOV -^povov).

XXI. 15. at fj/uepai avrai [e/cemu] (seven times else
where in the book).

xvi. 18 ; xx. 9, 11 ; xxvii. 20 ; xxviii. 6. eW c.
ace. temp, (eight times elsewhere in the book).

XXVii. 27. Kara c. ace. temp, (seven times elsewhere
in the book).

XVi. 13. 77 f)/j.epa TWV &lt;ra(3/3dTU&gt;v (vide xiii. 14).

XX. 6. at tj/mepai TU&gt;V afv/jmov (vide xii. 3).

XX. 16. f] fi/u epa r^9 TrevTtiKoa-Ttjs (vide ii. 1).

xxi. 16. Mnason is an ap-^aio^ /xaO&gt;;r&gt;/? (vide xv. 7 :
ad) 1 ri/mepwv apyaiwv had God commanded the recep
tion of the Gentile Cornelius).

XX. 7. /ueo-ovvKTiov (vide xvi. 25).

xxi. 13. And three times elsewhere in the we-
sections rore (the same use seventeen times elsewhere
in the book).

XVi. 10. evBews (nine times elsewhere in the book).

XXVii. 22. ra wv (also iv. 29, v. 38, xvii. 30, xx. 32).
Q? temp, eight times in the we-sections (twenty-one
times elsewhere scattered through the whole work). 1

All the chronological notices occurring- in the tee-sections

o O

i Apart from the Lukan writings and the Gospel of St. John, ws
temp, is very rare iu the New Testament. It does not occur in St.
Matthew (xxviii. 9 init. is not genuine) ; it is found once in St. Mark
(ix. 21), once in the thirteen Pauline epistles (Gal. vi. 10), never in
Hebrews, the Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse.

APPENDIX I 33

and among them some which are unusual, some indeed
iC/iich do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament are
found again distributed throughout the other parts of the
book ; with the exception only of T# ere pa, sell, r/u epa
(XX. 15, XXVii. 3), d^pt avyfc (XX. 11) and Sevrepaioi
(in the sense of " two days," XXViii. 13).

Only a few chronological terms of constant occur
rence not to be found in the we-sections can be
discovered in the remaining parts of the book. One
can point to eairr&gt;/9 (x. 33, xi. 11, xxi. 32, xxiii. 30), a
word which is not of frequent occurrence in other
Greek writers, to Trapa^pti/mu (in. 7, v. 10, xii. 23,
xiii. 11, xvi. 26, 33), to KUT CKC IVOV TOV Kaipov (xii. 1,
xix. 23), to 7rof&gt;/&lt;ra? -%p6vov (xv. 33, xviii. 23), to
Tea-(rapaKOi&gt;TaeTrj&lt;i y^povos (vii. 23, xiii. 18), to ottrta and
rpieria (xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30, xx. 31), words of in
frequent occurrence elsewhere (yet see Deissmann, Neue
Bibelstudien, s. 86), to t]/j.epav rao-crecrOat (xii. 21, xxviii.
23) ; but the words and their quite scanty attestation
(c^auTrjs and Trapa^pjfj.a excepted) show of themselves
that they can scarcely be accounted to belong to the
characteristic vocabulary of the author in the Acts. 1

1 The chronological notices in the gospel only partially admit of
comparison ; yet vide xiii. 33 rrj ixo^lvj) vii. 11 ; ix. 37 TTJ [rtf]
{7)5 viii. 27 ; xx. 9 xp^ VOi Ifavol (iv. 25) ; x. 35 ; xviii. 4 itri c.
ace. temp. x. 31 /card c. ace. temp, [only here] ix. 8, 19 Trpo(p-iJTi)t
ruv dpxa-lw ii- 3(5 iv yntpa.it iroXXaij, xv. 13 fj.er ov ?roXXds i]/j.pa.s
iv. 42 i]ntpav ytvfffdat i. 24; i. 39 ; vi. 12; xxiii. 7; xxiv. 18 at
T//t^pat aOrai iv. 16 ; xiii. 14 ; xiii. 16 ; xiv. 5 r] y^pa. TOU ffafipdrov
xxiv. 1 Tj; fug. rwv ffajSpdruv xxii. 7 ^ yntpa. rCiv a^v^wv xi. 5
UtaovvKTiov r&re only fourteen times in the gospel tvOiw only
seven times in the gospel i. 48 ; v. 10 ; xii. 50 dvb TOV vvv (vide
Acts xviii. t &gt;) wj temp, about nineteen times in the gospel, thus iu
about the same proportion as in the Acts.

34 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

We may thus conclude that there is absolutely no
difference between the chronological terminology of
the we-sections and that which is employed in the
rest of the work, and that so far as chronological
procedure is concerned the we-sections cannot be dis
tinguished from the work as a separate source.
Moreover, even apart from terminology, the character
and the extent of the author s employment of chrono
logy is quite similar and consistent throughout the
whole work. If the author possessed written sources
for the Acts, then so far as we can judge from his
procedure in regard to chronology he has not
pieced them together unskilfully and corrected them
clumsily throughout, but has used them freely, just as
one would use oral sources.

APPENDIX II

Chronological Information to be gained from the Acts

The careful reader of the Acts could derive from
the book the following pieces of chronological infor
mation : From the gospel he knew that our Lord
was born under Augustus, that He entered upon His
public ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Ca-sar, and that He was crucified under the procurator
Pilate and the tetrarch Herod Antipas. It was not
difficult for him to ascertain that Tiberius died in the
year A.D. 37, that Antipas was banished in A.D. 39,
and that Pilate was recalled in the year A.D. 36.
From Acts xi. 28, xii. 1, he would see that the foun
dation of the first Gentile Christian community (in

APPENDIX II 35

Antioch) fell in the time of Claudius, and that the
first sanguinary persecution of the Apostles, recorded
as contemporary with the former event (to be dis
tinguished from the persecution of the Christian
Hellenists in Jerusalem), took place under Herod
Agrippa. Since the latter reigned from A.D. 41 to
A.D. 44 it would be obvious that all which is recorded
in the first twelve chapters of the Acts belonged to
a period of eleven to thirteen (fourteen) years, and
accordingly occupied the last years of Tiberius,
the reign of Caligula, and the very first years of
Claudius.

On reading further he would recognise from xviii. 2
that the narrative was still confined to the reign of
Claudius, and that therefore all the events recorded
from chap. xi. to chap, xviii. up to the arrival of
St. Paul in Corinth must have fallen within the years
A.D. 41(44) 54. When, however, in xxiii. 26^". the
reader met with the name of the procurator Felix and
then with that of Festus, and further learnt that St.
Paul was cast into prison two years before the recall
of Felix (xxiv. 27) the entry into office of three
procurators could have been ascertained without great
difficulty at that time ; and seeing, lastly, that in the
chapters xviii._xxii. reference is again and again made
to the succession of years, we can perceive that he must
have derived from these notices sufficiently satisfactory
chronological information, even if he could no longer
ascertain with accuracy the year in which Claudius
banished the Jews from Rome. Although it is not
expressly stated in the book, he could have no doubt
that it was Nero to whom St. Paul appealed and to

36 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

whom the Apostle was sent, 1 and that his transport to
Rome must have taken place in the first half of the
reign of this emperor.

Moreover, the individual reader, who was better
instructed in this or that direction, would derive yet
more exact information from his study of the book.
If he were a Jewish Christian and a native of Jeru
salem he could orient himself in chronology from the
statements that St. Paul had been a pupil of Gamaliel,
that he appeared before the high- priest Ananias, and
that St. Peter had been tried before the high-priest
Annas and before Caiaphas. If he were acquainted
with the history of the Roman rule in the provinces
he could find out when Sergius Paulus was proconsul
in Cyprus, and when Gallio, the brother of Seneca,
was proconsul in Corinth. If he were a Jewish
Christian of Rome he could easily ascertain in what
year Claudius had decreed the banishment of the
Jews. If he were an Ephesian Christian he would
find much in the book relating to the ministry of

1 Can it be that the name of Nero was purposely omitted ? In
after times his name was mentioned with reluctance. In xxv. 8,
10, 11, 12, 21 ; xxvi. 32, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 19, where Nero is meant
we find only 6 Kalcrap; and in xxv. 21, 25, 6 2ej3curr6s. On the con
trary, Claudius is mentioned simply by name without any title (vide
supra). Moreover, St. Luke never calls the emperor 6 a&lt;nXei;s, as
was the custom with so many orientals (so also 1 Timothy, 1 Peter,
and the Apocalypse, but not St. Paul). Only the Jews in Thessa-
lonica who accuse St. Paul and the Christians before the judgment-
seat are allowed to say that these people act contrary to the decrees
of Caesar, /SatrtX^a trepov \tyovres dvai Irj/rovv. It is even possible to
deduce an important inference as to the date of the Acts from the
author s reluctance to use the title, seeing that 6 pacriXevs as a title
for the emperor very quickly established itself in the East, indeed
completely since the time of Domitian

APPENDIX II 37

St. Paul in Ephesus that would direct him to a
definite period of time. Indeed, if we only refrain
from criticising the book according to our modern
standards, we find that it satisfies even more exacting
requirements in relation to chronology, and that when
it gives definite information of this kind it proves
itself trustworthy so far as we have the power of
judging, however much we may deplore the absence
of a guiding thread of systematic chronology running
through the whole work. In short, the reader, even
in regard to chronology, finds himself exceedingly
well informed in a higher degree perhaps than the
author himself consciously intended.

In conclusion, we would direct attention to the
following point. The narratives of chaps, i v. and
xiii. xxviii. run in one direct line of strict succession
of events. 1 We may with reason question whether
everything in the succession i. v. is in correct order,
and in reference to chap. xv. this question has been
already asked (ride supra). But in the chaps, ri.-ani.
the author follows many lines at once. In the first
place, he again and again directs his eye to the
history of the Church of Jerusalem and of the
Apostles (especially St. Peter and his missionary
work). Secondly, in vi. 1 ff., he starts upon a history
of the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem and of the
" Seven," which from its beginning leads up to the
mission to the Gentiles and the foundation of the
Church of Antioch. Thirdly, he traces the ministry
of St. Philip in Samaria and in the coastlands, and
treats it not as a part of the history of the Hellenists
1 Only the episode of Apollos falls out of line.

38 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

and the " Seven," but as a history by itself. Fourthly
and lastly, he relates the story of St. Paul up to his
entry into the service of the youthful Church of
Antioch. In the small space of seven chapters he
follows all these lines and tries also to interweave
them with one another, at the same time leading up
to and picturing the great transit of the Gospel from
the sphere of Judaism to that of Hellenism (for which
one is in no way prepared in chaps, i v.). To us it
seems as if in these seven chapters more gaps have
been left than facts narrated, and that though the
literary skill here shown is indeed commendable, it is
nevertheless not very great. No wonder that for us
these gaps give rise to numerous notes of interroga
tion which attach themselves to what is narrated.
The question, however, whether the narrative of this
part of the Acts really contains the leading events of
the history and is essentially trustworthy forms a pro
blem that has not yet been solved, nor will it probably
ever be solved, seeing that we possess for its control
such an extremely small quantity of parallel material.

APPENDIX III

The Chronological Note at the end of the Acts

The most difficult chronological statement in the
book is the note at the end (xxviii. 30, 31) : eve/j.eivev
\scil. in Rome] &lt;5e dieriav o\rjv ev i$i&lt;a /j.ivQu)/j.u.Ti KOI
TravTas TOVS eicnrop evo/mevovs Trpos
Kypvcra-tov rrjv fiaariXelav rov Oeov KOI

APPENDIX III 39

TO. irepl TOV Kvptov Iqcrov Xoicrrov
//era iracr*/? Trappi]&lt;ria&lt;; a/ca&gt;Xi&gt;T&&amp;gt;9.

We must first ascertain that the construction of this
passage fully coincides with that of other statements
made by the author concerning the character and
duration of the ministry of the Apostle in the great
centres of his missionary field (vide supra}. Concern
ing Antioch we read that St. Paul was there eviavrov
oAov KOI SiSd^ai o^Xoj/ LKavov (xi. 26), of Corinth,
that he stayed there e v i a v TO v KOI /mfjva$ t SiSda-xcov
ev avrois TOV \6yov TOV Oeov (xviii. 11) ; ofEphesus
that he first worked in the synagogue eVt /jifjvas Tpei?
SiaXeyd/uevo? icai TreiOcav TO, Trepi Tfjs /3a&lt;rtAe/a?
TOV 0eoi/(xix. 8), then for two years more in the school
of Tyrannus KaO fj/j-epav &lt;$ia\ f ydju.evo$, OXTTC Trafray
rot/? KaTOiKOuvTay TTJV Acr/av ctKovcrai TOV \6yov TOV
Kvpiov (xix. 10); lastly of Caesarea, that he was there
a ^terta, and that Felix commanded the centurion
/jitjSeva K0)\veiv TWV ISiwv avTOv VTTtjptTeiv CIVTW (xxiv.
27, 23). Comparison, therefore, teaches us that the
author when he wrote of Rome would necessarily have
been most concerned to record the duration and the
character of St. Paul s ministry in that city. We
learn, moreover, that what seems at first sight so
strange namely, the scantiness of the information
concerning the ministry of St. Paul in Rome is not
out of character with the whole plan of the book ;
for St. Luke s procedure is not otherwise in his treat
ment of the ministry of St. Paul in Antioch, Corinth,
and Caesarea ; he has contented himself with a few
quite general touches. Only in the case of Ephesus
has he imparted some detailed information. The

40 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

inner life and growth of the Churches had evidently
no interest for him so far as the scope of the task he
had set himself was concerned, unless the hostility of
the Jews came into play or the authorities intervened
(vide supra). The difficulty of the passage, therefore,
lies by no means in the statement itself, but simply
in the fact that the book breaks off at this point.
And this fact is doubly strange ; firstly, in that the
author breaks off just at this place ; and secondly, in
that in breaking off , he at the very same moment hints
that the history of St. Paul had a further continuation;
for Blass and other scholars are justified in deciding
that the aorist eve/u.eivev, taken together with the
chronological note, implies that after two years this
situation was brought to an end by St. Paul s leaving
Rome altogether or by his exchanging a condition of
comparative freedom for one of closer confinement.
It is indeed scarcely probable that the latter alterna
tive is meant; for if this situation of closer confine
ment lasted only a very short time and led to the
execution of the Apostle, it is difficult to see why
his death is not recorded ; if, however, it lasted
for a longer time, we ask in vain why this time
was not included in the period of his residence in
Home. We are therefore left with the hypothesis and
this the most probable that the Apostle again left Rome; 1
for the hypothesis that St. Luke for political reasons
did not wish to recount the fatal issue of the trial of
St. Paul is not suggested by his attitude throughout

1 That this hypothesis is supported by the historical notices
concerning the Apostle in the second Epistle to Timothy may here
be only mentioned without further examination.

APPENDIX III 41

the whole book (and is incredible in itself) ; and the
other hypothesis, that St. Luke composed his book at
the conclusion of this SieTia must likewise be rejected,
for in that case he must have written, " Paul has
now been in Rome two full years" ; instead of which,
he has quite clearly described the residence in the
hired lodging at Rome as a closed episode.

The problem, therefore, takes the following form :
\Yhy is it that St. Luke, who in the last quarter of
this book has described the fortunes of St. Paul in
such detail, has not proceeded further with his narra
tive of the history of the Apostle, but has concluded
his account with the two years residence in Rome
which he, moreover, disposes of in the same cursory
fashion that he disposes of similar visits which are
recorded elsewhere in the book (arrival ; duration of
the visit ; relations with Judaism, xxviii. 17^1 ; rela
tions with the authorities, xxviii. 31 [a/ccoAimo?] ; the
content of the Apostle^s teaching) ? Why has he not
related what happened to St. Paul, and what he did
after he had again left Rome ?

Proposed in this form the problem is, in my
opinion, capable of solution if one rightly discerns
the aim and method of the book, while it remains
insoluble if one follows the hypothesis, not suggested
by the form of the concluding verse, that in the
mind of the author the Steria closed with the execu
tion of the Apostle, concerning which nothing is
said. In spite of first impressions the book, even
in its second half, does not profess to narrate the
history of St. Paul, but to describe the way in which,
according to the predestined purpose of God, Salva-

42 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

tion passed to the Gentiles from the Jews, who had
lost it (cf. supra, pp. xxi. &lt;??.). Chap, xxviii. 25-28
forms both the true conclusion and the true key to
the book. The fact here stated in impressive fulness
of language, and with the trumpet-blast of Isaiah^s
prophetic utterance here proclaimed in the sentence :
yvo/HTTOV ovv ecTTW vjj.lv on TOIS eOveiriv cnre-
&lt;TTa\ri TOVTO TO crccTi] p lo v TOU Oeov avTol KCU
aKovcrovrai, has been before expressly, even if not so
loudly, declared in various passages of the work (from
xiii. 46 onwards ; vide xviii. 6, &c.). Certainly from
vi. \ff&gt; onwards it forms the leading thought in the
whole economy of the book ; while even earlier it
probably lies at the background of the great list of
nations in chap. ii. Now at the close this leading
thought again comes to the front and holds the field
with sovereign power. As he writes these concluding
words the author plainly declares that he must now
leave St. Paul as he before left St. Peter the diffi
culty is the same in both cases, even if the disappear
ance of St. Peter is not half so strange for the
Divine plan of salvation is fulfilled ! Soli Deo gloria!
The author is concerned not with Peter nor with Paul,
but with the grand development of the Divine pur
pose whereby Jewish hearts were hardened, whereby
the gospel was proclaimed among the Gentiles from
Antioch to Ephesus and Corinth and finally in Rome,
whereby also Gentile hearts were made receptive of
the message : 1 avToi KOI aKovcrovrai ! According to
St. Luke it was not St. Paul who began the mission
to the Gentiles ; others had preceded him ; only with

1 Vide e.g. xvi. 14: 6 xvpios Birjvoi^fv rrjv Kapulav rrjs \v5tas.

APPENDIX III 43

excelling power he had thrown himself into the work
which had been already commenced.

And yet, after all, we may ask how the author
could have had the heart not to tell us of the
death of St. Paul (and of St. Peter). Even so
early as the second century this question was asked,
and the psychological problem herein presented is in
truth sufficiently difficult. The hypothesis that St.
Luke intended to write a TO/TO? Xo yo? does not, in
my opinion, receive any firm support from Acts i. 1 ;
it is a makeshift that has little to commend it, be
cause in accepting it we are almost compelled, against
all likelihood, to suppose that St. Luke intended the
second part of his work to be a history of (St. Peter
and) St. Paul. What could St. Luke have purposed
to narrate in this supposed third part if not the
history of the last days of St. Peter and St. Paul ?
But coming after the history of our Lord and of the
hardening of the heart of the Jewish nation and of
the conversion of the Gentiles from Caesarea to Rome,
the story of the last days of the two apostles would
have formed a finale which could scarcely have made up
a complete book, and which in importance would not
have reached the level of the first two parts, indeed
would have been quite incongruous with them. We
must therefore be content to assume that St. Luke
could so concentrate himself upon the main subject of
his work that he could allow himself to break oft the
thread of the story of St. Paul at the end of the two
years 1 ministry in Rome, because the aim of the book
had been now attained. We cannot indeed imagine
his doing this if the two years 1 ministry had imiuedi-

44 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

ately preceded the gaining of the martyr s crown. If
this had been so, the omission of the story of the
martyrdom would have involved on the part of the
author a piece of self-sacrifice which would have been
quite useless, and which is, moreover, psychologically
unintelligible. Neither does the text demand such
an hypothesis ; on the contrary, it almost excludes it.
Between the end of the " Sieria o\tj " in Rome and the
death of St. Paul there must have lain a fairly long
period during which the Apostle continued his
ministry, though this ministry was no longer of high
importance in the grand progress of the mission.

APPENDIX IV

Special Readings of a Chronological character in the
so-called ft-recenswn

The so-called ^S-recension presents a series of inter
polations and variant readings, some of which are
chronological in character :

1. ii. 1. D : Kai eyevero ev TCU? tj/mepais e/cetVaf? TOV
crv/uL7r\}jpovar6ai (instead of KOI ev TU&gt; &lt;ru/A7rA.),
not received by Blass into the /3-recension.
The meaning of the passage is essentially
altered by this interpolation ; for we may
now probably translate, " It happened in
those days, when the day of Pentecost was
fulfilled, " i.e. the fulfilment is no longer to
be understood simply in a temporal sense.
At all events the reading is secondary and
in its phraseology an imitation.

APPENDIX IV 45

2. iii. 1. Dp : Ev (Se) Tafy t]/u.epats

Ilerpo? (instead of Ile r^Of $e) ; not received
by Blass into the /3-recension. It was in
tended to mark a new paragraph (vide ii. 1).

3. iii. 1. D : TO SeiXivdv, received by Blass into the

/3-recension; perhaps original, but probably
a descriptive interpolation.

4. v. 1. E : ev curry Se ria Kaipw ai i jp T&lt;? (instead

of simply avrjp Se ri&lt;t), not received by Blass
into the /3-recension ; ride ii. 1, iii. 1.

5. ix. 40. Egp Ps-August(sah) : rj Se Trapa^rjfjia

tivoifcev (instead of fj Se J/i -)not received into the
|8-recension by Blass. Concerning Trapa-^p^fjLa
in St. Luke, vide supra and xxii. 29.

6. xi. 2. Dspw : 6 /J.ei&gt; ovv IleTpo? Sia IKCIVOV ypovov

t]8e\t](rav TropeuOijvai e&lt;V lepovaoXv/uLu, an inter
polation received by Blass into the /3-recen-
sion. For IKCIVOS -^povo? vide viii. 11, ix. 23
(r/fjLepat t/cai/a/), ix. 43 (fjfj.. IK.), xiv. 3, xviii. 18,
XXVii. 7 (IK. ^yu.), XXVii. 9. Feeble imitation.

7. xiv. 2. Dsgpw (E) : 6 Se Kupios eSu&gt;Kev Ta^y

eiprjvqv, an interpolation accepted by Blass ;
TO^ does not occur elsewhere in the Acts.

8. xiv. 20. f sah : k&lt;nrepa.&lt;; avaa-rds (in place of

ava&lt;TTa&lt;i\ accepted by Blass ; probably due to
imitation, vide iv. 3.

9. xvi. 11. DMs : Tfl Se nravptov avap(0tWe9 (vide

ava^Qfvre^ o^f), to compensate for the omission
of ev6eu&gt;s in verse 10; also due to imitation;
accepted by Blass.

10. xvii. 19. DMs : yueru $e ij/xe^oa? Ttva? Trt\a-
/36/u.fvoi (in place of 7ri\a/36fjievoi) t interpola-

46 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

tion due to reflection ; accepted by Blass ;
due to imitation.

11. xviii. 19. Df Ms sah : TW (LTTIOVTL cra^j3ar(t)

ei(TcX6wi&gt; (in place of etVeXOwj/) ; interpolation
due to reflection ; accepted by Blass ; due to
imitation.

12. xviii. 21. DHL? Syri gw al lat.: (el-rev)- Set ^e

, an interpolation inserted because
it was thought that a journey to Jerusalem
was referred to in verse 22 ; received by Blass
into the /3-recension. In xiii. 44 the right
reading is perhaps ro&gt; ep^o/mei/M (e^o/ieww ?)
era/3/3aTft&gt;.

13. xix. 9. Dsgw : (SiaXeyo nevos ei&gt; T. cr^oA//

Tf|0a^voiy) CITTO upas Tre/zTTT*;? ea)j ^e/car;?, re
ceived by Blass into the /3-recension ; perhaps
original (vide supra the passages where hours
are noted in the Acts).

14. xx. 18. D 1 : a)? TpiGriav q KOI irXeiov, received

by Blass into the /3-recension ; a proleptic
repetition from xx. 81, with the enigmatic or
rather incorrect addition &gt;/ KOU ir\ecov.

15. XXi. 5. d : 777 $e e^tj? rjfjilpa, received by

Blass into the /3-recension (in place of ore
Se eyevero e^apricrai r//u.as ret? yfj.epa$) ; a
careless and unsuitable correction, due to
the constant occurrence of the phrase in
the context.

16. XXi. 15. D : yuera Se rtvas rj/nepay

(for yuera ^e TU? ^/ae/oa? rairra?

evidently a secondary reading ;

APPENDIX IV 47

received by Blass into the /3-recension. Due
to imitation.

17. xxi. 26. D : Tfl Trtov&lt;Tfl (for 77; e^o/xeV/;), re

ceived by Blass into the /3-recension ; insigni
ficant variant, due to imitation.

18. xxi. 27. D (g sch) : crvvr\ovfj.evr)&lt;; Se rns e{3$o-

fjLtjS f]fjLepa&lt;i (for o&gt;? e e/xeAXov [at] CTTTU t l/mepai
o-vireXeicrOai), received by Blass into the /3-
recension ; insignificant variant ; due to imi
tation of the gen. abs., not infrequent in the
Acts.

19. xxii. 29. Ms sah : KCU Trapa^ptj/ma eAucrei/ airroY,

received by Blass into the ^-recension ; un
suitable interpolation. For Trapa^tjfjLa vide
ix. 40.

20. XXVii. 1. fgs : rj) e-iravpiov, received by Blass

into the /3-recension ; really part of a more
extensive interpolation.

21. XXVii. 5. f : KOI ywera ra^ra, received by Blass

into the /3-recension ; really part of a more
extensive interpolation.

22. XXVii. 5. Msf : Si yuepwv SeKaTrevTe, received

by Blass into the /3-recension; perhaps original.
To treat these variants as homogeneous and related
to one another, and to include them in a single recen
sion, is a fundamental error. The tradition of the
text itself protests against such a procedure. The
numbers 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, as pure D readings,
may perhaps be regarded as related to one another ;
a second group is formed by [2], 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13; a third group by 8, 20, 21, 22. The numbers
4, 5, 19 stand in isolation. The text of the Acts

48 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

has accordingly been corrected by various hands
from a chronological point of view among others
and in accordance with its own style. The second
group is the most important ; it alone has a claim to
be regarded as a relic of a very ancient recension.
To it also may be assigned the passage x. 41 over
looked in the preceding list, where D sah Egsw and
Const. App. vi. 30 insert jj/x^oa? rea-o-apaKovra in
accordance with i. 3. We ought perhaps also to
mention ix. 30, where ta VVKTOS is inserted by E minusc.
180 sgp (in imitation of numerous passages vide
supra).

It is improbable that St. Luke himself for
mally published the Acts of the Apostles (so also
Ewald, cf. Wellhausen, loc. dt. s. 19/); for (1)
many instances of roughness suggest the absence
of a last careful revision by the author ; (2) the
history of the text of the book teaches that from
the earliest times several, or at least two, editions
of the book were in currency. The very fact that
the book was not published by the author himself
made it possible for different editions to establish
themselves. One does not, however, in matters of
chronology miss the revising hand of the author
(contrary to Ramsay). There is not, in my opinion,
a single passage in this book where a developed
chronological notice (like that of St. Luke iii. 1, 2)
would have been in place.

CHAPTER II

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES

I. Terms of more General Significance.
("E0VOS about forty-four times in the Acts).

Most frequently as ret e0y/ meaning the Gentile nations,
i.e. those who were not Jews (LXX) ; so also in XXI.
II; 1 more rarely in a quite neutral sense, as in ii. 5 :
UTTO Trarro? eQvov? TWV VTTO rov ovpavov, x. 35, xvii. 26 :
TTU.V eOvo? avOjOOJTrwv, viii. 9 : TO e0vo? r//? 2a/xajO/a?,
xiii. 19, &c. In the former signification it has been
already so affected by the Judaeo-Hellenic use of the
word, that the Gentile inhabitants of a city are called
TO. eOvtj (xiii. 48, xiv. 2); xv. 23: aSe\&lt;pot$ rot? &lt;r
e6i wv, xxi. 25: Trepl TOOV TreTrttTTewcoTfoj/ eOnwy = " the
Gentile Christians." It is placed in contrast with its
antithesis (the Jewish nation) in iv. 27 (a-vv eOvea-iv KOI
Xaof? Icr|Oa&gt;/X), ix. 15 (eiwTriov eOvwv re /cat (3a&lt;Ti\iov
viwi&gt; re la^oaj/X), xiv. 5 (op/u.t) TWI&gt; eOvwv re KOI louSalcov),
xxi. 21 (ro^ Kara ra eOvrj Trai/Taf Io^^a/oi f), xxvi. 17
(eutpov/ji.ei os ere e/c TOV \aov [i.e. the Jewish nation]
KU\ K TWV eBviav}, xxvi. 23 (tcaTayyeXXeiv rw re Xao)
KOI TO/"? e9ve&lt;rti&gt;). Nevertheless, the word is not yet
absolutely secularised : in x. 22 we read that the
Gentile centurion Cornelius was held in good repute

1 References to the we-sections are in bolder type.
49 D

50 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

UTTO oXou TOV e$you? TUIV lovSaioav, St. Paul speaks
(xxiv. 17 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 19) of the Jewish nation
as eOvos juov, and the Jewish orator Tertullus (xxiv. 3)
as well as St. Paul (xxiv. 10) call the Jewish nation
TO eQvos TOVTO. But in all these six instances it is
to be noticed that we are dealing with discourses, or
rather with the reports of discourses, in which the
official terminology, such as was customary before
a Gentile tribunal, would naturally be used. These
passages only show how carefully St. Luke handled
matters of style.

No difference can be distinguished between different
parts of the book in the use of this word.

Aads (about forty-eight times, including 1 twenty-
four times in the first seven chapters).

O Xao ? is, as a rule, the designation for the Jewish
nation in the religious or political sense (cf. especially
xxi. 28 : OVTOS CCTTIV 6 avQpunros 6 Kara TOV \aov K.

TOV VOJU.OV K. TOV TOTTOV TOVTOV Sl$O.(TK(J0l&gt;, XXviii. 17) ;

further for the community of the Jews at a definite
place (e.g. Jerusalem). Often but only in discourse
of an exalted character it is combined with the
epithet IcrpcujX (iv. 10; iv. 27 [here Xao) I&lt;rpaij\
after the LXX] ; xiii. 17, 24) ; only once (xii. 11) with
TCJV lovSaidov. Not infrequently it partakes of the
meaning of our phrase " all the people " (in a city,
cf. xxi. 36 : TO TrX^of TOV \aov) ; or of the people in
distinction from their leaders (e.g. iv. 17, 21 ; v. 13) ;
or of a collection of people (e.g. v. 37). Only in a
quotation from the Old Testament \aol=e6vtj (iv.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 51

25). Aao?, as a rule, has as its antithesis TO. Z6i&gt;t],
and so in xxvi. 17, 23 they are expressly opposed
to one another (e/c TOV \aov KOLI e/c TWV eQvwv r&lt;5
re \au&gt; KOI rots eOvetrtr, cf. iv. 27). Only in one
passage does Xao ? signify Christians, namely, in xv.
14 (Xa/3eiV e eQvav XaoV), the word as it occurs
in xviii. 10 (Siort Xao ? eVr/ /u.oi TTO\V&lt;? eY 777
Tro Xet rai/Tfl) can scarcely be regarded as approaching
this use.

No distinction can be drawn between the different
parts of the book in regard to the use of the word. Its
absence from the we-sections is accidental. In his use
of TO. f&vti and 6 Xao? St. Luke, the Gentile Christian,
has kept quite closely to the idiom of the Septuagint.
The fact that in the book the Christians are never
called 6 Xao? is a strong argument for its high
antiquity.

(ten or eleven times) and
(twice).

The former word, which is wanting in the synoptic
gospels (it occurs, however, thrice in St. John), appears
five times in the Acts in the combination frequently
met with after St. Paul lovSaiwv TS KOI EXXj/i/wv
(xiv. 1; xviii. 4; xix. 10, 17; xx. 21) in the first four
places the author is speaking, in the fifth St. Paul. By
its combination with Ioi;&lt;Wot the word received a wider
significance, so that it almost coincides with ra ZOvt]
(it is not, however, till the fourth century that the
process is completed and ot ^EXX^e? = the Gentiles).
Apart from combination with lovSaioi the word occurs

52 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

again xi. 20 (dispersed Christians of Jerusalem preach
to the Hellenes in Antioch), xvi. 1, 3 (the father
of Timothy of Lystra was a Hellene), xvii. 4 (the
ere/3o / uei ot"EAA&gt;;ve9 in Thessalonica, i.e. the proselytes),
and xxi. 28 (St. Paul is supposed to have introduced
Hellenes into the Temple J ). It cannot therefore be
proved that St. Luke uses the word only in reference
to particular regions and excludes it from others. We
find once EAA^v/^e? yvvatKe? (xvii. 12 in Bercea of
Macedonia), once EAAqi/icrn (xxi. 37 2 ), and twice 3
(vi. 1 and ix. 29) EAA^wcrrcu, only Jews of the
Diaspora dwelling in Jerusalem and speaking Greek
are so called (antithesis : ol Eftpaioi), and are still
so called after they have become Christians. The
word is not found elsewhere in the New Testa
ment, and is altogether very rare. By the expression
lovfiaioi re /ecu "EAA^i/e? St. Luke is characterised as
belonging to the Pauline school.

(once).

St. Luke again coincides with St. Paul in his
sparing use of E/3pa?o9 and in the way in which he
uses it. St. Paul, as is well known, uses the word
only twice (2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Philipp. iii. 5) to express
the fact that he was fully a Jew by birth (in spite of
his birth in the Diaspora) ; similarly Eifipatoi is used
in vi. 1 in contrast to EAA^wcrTcu (vide supra). Every
Hebrew is a Jew, but not every Jew is a Hebrew.
As this distinction between lovSatoi and Et(3paioi was

1 In xviii. 7 the word "EXX^vej is of doubtful authority.

2 Elsewhere only in St. John xix. 20.

3 In xi. 20 we must read "EXX^ces (vide supra).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 53

not universal * (vide Heinrici on 2 Cor. xi. 22) there
exists here a relationship in the use of language between
the two missionaries.

Three times in the Acts we find the phrase T#
EftpaiSi Sia\eKT(a (xxi. 40; xxii. 2; xxvi. 14; no
where else in the New Testament). This can only
mean Aramaic, which has the same name in St. John,
and is elsewhere described even by born Jews as
Hebrew " (vide Zahn, Einl., 1 I. s. 5, 18).

(about eigfhty-two times).

While lovSaioi is found in the three synoptic
gospels only seventeen times (including five times in
St. Luke), it occurs in St. John about seventy-one
times and in the Acts about eighty-two times ! And
it is most noteworthy that in the first eight chapters
of the Acts it is found only thrice ; these chapters
also in other respects partake of the linguistic charac
teristics of the gospel.

The connections in which the word occurs in the
Acts are very manifold : (1) it stands in combination
with EXX^ve?, Xao?, and eOvrj (vide supra) ; (2) in com
bination with proselytes (ii. 10; xvii. 17); (3) pleon-
astically side by side with a-vvaycoyq 3 and VO/JLOS 4 (xiii.
5; [xiii. 42]; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 1, 10; xxv. 8); (4) in the
vocative; (5) as an adjective (x. 28; xxii. 3 avtjp
xiii. 6 evSoTrodv jrtjs, xvi. 1 ; xxiv. 24

1 Yet Jews avoided the word E/S/xuot ; it is also wanting in the
gospels and the Apocalypse. The name of honour, which was there
fore preferred, was lovSaloi.

1 TJJ Idif 5t.a\tKT&lt;i&gt; stands in 5. 19 ; ii. 6, 8.

3 Generally, however, it is wanting with this word.

Yet only in the speech of St. Paul before Festus.

54 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

&lt;yin /, xix. 13 ej-opKKTTai, xix. 14* ap-^iepevs) ; (6) as a
designation of the Jewish population of a land or
a city (xiv. 19 OLTTO Avnoxetas KOI !KOVIOV lovfiaioi,
xvii. 13 ol ctTTo Qe&lt;T(ra\oviKt]s Iov., xxi. 27 ol cnro T.
Acr/a? lov., cf. xxiv. 18; xxi. 39 lov&uo? Tap&lt;reuy,
xxv. 7 ol OLTTO lepovcr. /caTa/3e/3///fore9 Iou&lt;^., see also
xviii. 2 evpwv TIVGL loud., xviii. 24 Iou&lt;5a&lt;b? &lt;^e Ti?
ATj-oXAcof, xix. 34 ; strange [vide infra] but yet cor
rect ii. 5 : tja-av [eV] lepovaraX^/m. KaroiKovvres lovaioi
. . . aTro TTOVTO? e^i/oi;?) ; (7) vide expressions such as ol
TTpcaroi (xxv. 2; xxviii. 17) vel ol Trpea-fivrepoi (xxv. 15)
r. lou&uW ; &gt;? X^/ a T * 1^- ^ s f un d only once (x. 39),
and then with Jerusalem. Most often, however, it
occurs, as in St. John, as a designation for the whole
nation ; and in some passages, as so often in St. John,
in a somewhat disparaging sense. To apply again
and again the general name of a nation or of a
religious society to a distinct group of the same is
an unusual procedure. It may be very complimentary,
it may, however, also be the opposite, and so it is
here and there with St. Luke. It is important that
in the passage of the we-sections where lovSatoi occurs
(xxi. 11) it has just this disparaging significance:
rov avSpa ov ea-Tiv rj ^covt] avrrj oi/r&lt;o? Srja-ovariv ev
Iepov&lt;rd\r]/J. oi lov&aioi KCU TrapaSuxrovcriv V yeipus
eQvwv. Thus the whole nation is made responsible,
and the prophet Agabus, who himself was sprung
from among the Jews, speaks of the members of his
own nation as ol lovSaioi, cf. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 1

1 It is noteworthy that in xxviii. 21 and xxii. 5 the Jews address
one another and that in official discourse as aSe\&lt;f&gt;ot. St. Luke
must have heard them speak thus. The use of this term by Christians
in addressing one another seems therefore to have been borrowed.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 55

(about fifteen times), la-paqXirat (five

times).

Both words belong almost exclusively to the first
half of the book, but in the second half they occur
each once (xxviii. 20 T*?? JX*x3of r. Icrpw jX, xxi. 28
avSpes I&lt;rp. (3o]9eiT^. Iay&gt;ar/\ is used in the same
connections in which it would also stand in the Old
Testament (with /3acr&lt;Ae/a, ira? ot/co?, Xaoj, viol) ; it
stands by itself only in v. 31 and xiii. 23 (as so often
in the Pauline epistles). la-patjXiTai only occurs
with avSpes in the vocative ; elsewhere in the New
Testament it is found only in St. Paul (thrice) and
once in St. John (i. 48).

pdpftapoi (twice).

The word only occurs in St. Paul (twice) l and in
St. Luke of the writers of the New Testament, and
in contrast to "EXA^ye? ; but while St. Paul uses it,
so to say, objectively, as indeed every Jew could
use it, St. Luke in applying it to the inhabitants
of Malta who could not speak Greek (XXViii. 2, 4), 2
uses it subjectively, and thereby declares his own
Greek descent.

Oi KCLTOIKOVVTC? = the inhabitants (thirteen

times).

This term for " inhabitants " 8 imitated from the
LXX is found in all parts of the book, usually the

1 The passage 1 Cor. xiv. 11 does not belong here.
* Mommsen was therefore not justified in thinking this strange.
3 Elsewhere in the New Testament it is found in St. Luke iiii.
4, and often in the Apocalypse.

56 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

place (the land) is put in the accusative (but in ii. 5 ;
ix. 22 ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 27 ev is used). It is combined
with Jerusalem l in i. 19 ; ii. 5, 14 ; iv. 16 ; xiii. 27 ;
with Damascus in ix. 22 ; xxii. 12, with Lydda in ix.
32, 35, with Ephesus in xix. 17, with Mesopotamia in
ii. 9, with Asia in xix. 10, with Judaea in xi. 29. 2

Ty (about thirty-four times), Xu&gt;pa (eight times ;
n Trep^Mpos once), IIo A&lt;9 (about forty-three times),
K&M (once), ToVo? (eighteen times).

In the great majority of passages yrj is used either
of the land, or of the world, or of the earth in distinc
tion from the heavens, or in quotations from the Old
Testament. It signifies a particular land in vii. **

tj XaXSaicov and rj jrf avTi] = Palestine), vii. 36, 40 ;

1 While in ii. 14 we read : "ApSpes louScuot Kal ol
Ifpov&lt;ra\rnj., in ii. 5 it is the Jews of the Diaspora dwelling in
Jerusalem who are termed KaroiKovires. But this is not inadmissible
(as say Blass, who in ii. 5 omits lovda ioi with Cod. Sin., Neue kirchl.
Ztschr. 1892, s. 826 jf., and Joh. Weiss, who thinks that a Kal must
be inserted after TouScuot), rather it is demanded by the context.
The author wished to say that the people described some verses
later as Parthians, Medes, &c., who were dwelling at that time at
Jerusalem, were nevertheless Jews, and this is quite correctly ex
pressed by the words : ?j&lt;rav 6t ev lepova-aXrjfj. KaTOiKovvres lovdaioi,
&v5pes ei)\a/3eTj a7r6 iravTos ZOvovs rdv virb rbv ovpavbv.

2 Ilapoi/aa and Trdpoiitos have not yet reached a technical signifi
cance in the Acts (TrapoiKfTv is altogether wanting) and are of very
rare occurrence ; they are only found in the speech of St. Stephen
(vii. 6. 29) and in St. Paul s sermon at Antioch (xiii. 17), thus only
in connection with Old Testament history. This is again a proof
of the relatively high antiquity of the Acts ; for these words became
technical ecclesiastical terms before the end of the first century,
vide 1 Peter i. 17 ; ii. 11 ; First Epistle of Clement, &c. In ii. 10
we find ol eTrtSrjit.ovvrfs Pw/ucuot and in xvii. 20 ol eirid &gt;j/j,oui&gt;Tft
j-tvoi. The word is wanting elsewhere in the New Testament.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 57

xiii. 17 (yii Aiyinrrov or Aiyvrnf)t vii. 29 (yq
Ma&dju), xiii. 19 (yrj Xamaf, twice); this use is,
however, confined to lands mentioned in the Old
Testament, and is derived from the LXX ; St. Liike
himself never uses this form of expression. In the we-
sections (xxvii. 39, 43, 44) yrj is the dry land (so
also in iv. 24; xiv. 15, where it occurs together with
OaAa&lt;rcra).

Xa5|oa occurs only once in the plural (viii. 1) and
there is used like " agri " to signify villages. The
Christian Hellenists driven by persecution from Jeru
salem are scattered over the villages of Judaea and
Samaria ; and so we read (viii. 25) TroXXa? re KW/ULCIS
TU&gt;V Za/xdjOetTaii einjyyeXi^ovro. Apart from this
passage the extension of the movement over a country
(the villages) appears to be distinctly mentioned only
once again. In xiii. 49 we read that the word of the
Lord spread abroad from Antioch in Pisidia &lt;V oX/9 TJ/J
Xwpas. But (vide infra) it is possible that here x^P a
= " regio " in the official sense. In the sense of an
undefined land as distinguished from the sea it is found
in XXVii. 27. In the sense of a definite land it is com
bined in x. 39 with ru&gt;v lovSatwv, in xxvi. 20 with
T&gt;/9 loucWa?, in xvi. 6 and xviii. 23 with FoXcnnuof ;
in xii. 20 it signifies the region of Tyre and Sidon.
It does not occur in other passages of the book.
Seeing that the word is so rarely used in the book,
though so many lands are mentioned therein, the
question must be asked whether in all these passages
(with the exception of xii. 20) \(*&gt;pa is not purposely
used to indicate that the whole country-side is meant.
In chapter x. 39 we read : jj/xef? /xapruoe?

58 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

wv eTroj/o-ei/ ev re 777 X/ ? T v
lepovcrdXrjju., and in xxvi. 20 : a\\a TOI$ ev Aa/xdo-/coi?
Trpoorov re KOI Tepocro\v/Jt.oi$ e&lt;V Traaav re r^ vdpav
T&gt;;9 Iou&lt;Wa? [Blass unnecessarily proposes loftWot?],
/ecu To?9 zQveariv aTn/yyeAoi/. Why does St. Luke not
here simply write ^ Iou&lt;Wa, as he so often does?
Evidently he wishes to emphasise the fact that
St. Paul s preaching extended to the country folk of
Judaea. Again it is of additional importance that
the author in the only two places where he mentions
Galatia uses the expression fj TaXctTUct] ywpa? while
elsewhere when speaking of Roman provinces he
always names them Asia, Phrygia, Cilicia, and so
forth. We may assert that he so speaks because
Galatia was poor in cities, and because in official ter
minology the word " regiones " was also used of this
province. It then further follows that in the much
discussed question where the Galatia of St. Paul is
to be found, we may not claim St. Luke as a witness
in favour of the South-Galatian theory ; rather we
must regard him as a witness to the contrary. The
word Trepi^wpo?) sometimes found in the synoptic
gospels, occurs only once in the Acts (xiv. 6) : eis ra?
TroAe/? r&gt;79 AiwaoWa? Avarrpav KOI ^.ep^rjv KOI Trjv

The use of the word x^j a ni ^ e Acts, though it is
so rare, again shows the consistency of the author. 2
The word 7ro At9 is added to the name of a city

1 Some exegetes think that x&lt;6/&gt;a (xvi. 6) is also connected with
$piryiai&gt;, but Qpuytav cannot be adjectival ; moreover, in xviii. 23 we
read: Siepxtpevos Kadeffi ryv Ta\aTiKTjv x&pa.v Kal ^pvytav, here
&pvylav is certainly a substantive.

2 Xupiov (field) is found in Acts i. 18, 19 ; iv. 34 ; v. 3, 8 ; xxviii. 7.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 59

twice in the we-sections (XVi. 14 ; XXVii. 8 : 7ro /\eo&gt;9
Qvareipaiv, Tro Xi? Aacra/a) and once in the rest of the
book (xi. 5 : ev iro Ae* loV-Tr?;) ; in all other numerous
instances where a town is mentioned the name stands
without TroXi?. The phrase : rj E&lt;ecrtW Tro Xt? (xix.
35) l occurs once in a speech to the Ephesians in
order to flatter their pride. Samaria is introduced
in viii. 5 without closer definition as " f) Tro Xt? Ttjs
Zctyuap/af " scarcely because the author assumed
that his readers knew what city was meant, but
because he wanted to let us know that the Gospel,
when it was carried from Juda?a to Samaria, made
its entrance at once into the capital city of that
country.

Sometimes the author adds the name of the pro
vince to the name of the city. His reasons for this
procedure are not always the same, and are not always
clearly discernible ; as a rule, however, we may assume
that it is because he wishes to draw attention to the
fact that the Gospel had now made its way into the
particular province mentioned youthful missionary
religions count their conquests by provinces ! per
haps also because he wishes to determine more accu
rately the geographical situation of the city and to

1 Like a true Hellene St. Luke likes to describe persons by the
cities from which they sprang. He speaks not only of Romans and
Athenians (xvii. 21, 22), but he also writes Nafapalot (often), TI//JIOS
(xii. 20), ZiSwnoi (xii. 20), To/xr^uj (ix. 11; xxi. 39), Avrioxfvs (vi.o),
A\fai 5pevs (vi. 9 ; xviii. 24), Aep^aios (xx. 4), Qea&lt;ja\oviKevs (xx. 4;
xxvii. 2), Bepotatoj (xx. 4), KopivOios (xviii. 8), E06nos (xix. 28. 34,
35 ; xxi. 29), \v5la. jr6\ews Qvareipuv (xvi. 14). Cf. also the terms
llovTiKlx (xviii. 2), A&lt;riav6i (xx. 4), Kvvpios (iv. 36 ; xi. 20 ; xxi. 16),
KvpTfaiot (vi. 9; xi. 20 ; xiiL 1), AiOlo\J/ (viii. 27), MacceSuu (xvi. 9;
xix. 2 J ; xxvii. 2), AiyvirTio* (xxi. 38), 2a/xa/}dnjs (viii. -5), ic.

60 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

avoid by this means any confusion with another city
of the same name. St. Luke writes :

Ila/x^tA/a? (xiii. 13).
^aa r/7? Ilfcri^/a? (xiii. 14). 1
a KOI Ae jO/3&gt;7, TroXa? r^? A.VKaovla$ (xiv. 6).
i ]Ti&lt;i ecTTiv 7rpu&gt;Tt) T&gt;/9 yUfjO/^o? Ma/ce^o-
v/a? TroXt? (XVi. 12).
Ta/ocrei ? r^? KiXj/c/a? (xxi. 39).
Tct|0&lt;TO? r&gt;/9 KtAma? (xxii. 3).
Mvppa rJ/9 Au/aa? (XXVii. 5).

It is most extraordinary that the epithet " of
Cilicia " is twice added to the large and well-known
city of Tarsus. One is almost tempted to recollect
that there was another Tarsus in Bithynia, and that
St. Luke, according to the very ancient preface to his
gospel, is reported to have died in Bithynia. It is
better to remember that it belonged to the style of
the registers a style that would naturally be adopted
by a man giving formal account of himself to give
the name of the province, however well known the city
might be.

St. Luke exhibits great acuteness and delicacy of
perception when in xxi. 39 he makes St. Paul add to
Tapcrevs the words " OVK ao^/xou TroXew? TroXt rj;? " 2 in
order that by this reference to Eurip. Ion. 8 (OVK
acr^/xo? EAXvi/wv TroXt?) he might show himself, in
the face of the Chiliarch s mistake, to be a man of

1 Etr Aynoxfiav TT]V llicridiav has almost unanimous attestation ;
but Htffidiai&gt; cannot be an adjective ; we must therefore probably
read ILtnSiaj with D.

2 Uo\irr)s occurs only here in the Acts, but is found elsewhere in
the New Testament in St. Luke xv. 15 ; xix. 14 (in the Hebrews in a
quotation). Ho\iTfia = Roman citizenship only in Acts xxii. 28.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 61

Hellenic culture. Similar phrases occur in inscrip
tions found in Asia Minor, for instance in the
famous inscription of Abercius : E/cXe/cr^? 7ro Ae&&amp;gt;9 6
TroXiTtjs. In connection with the use of the word
7ro/\&lt;9 the following additional remarks are perhaps
worthy of note. 1 The mission was for the most
part carried on in the cities, as also the Jews

1 Let me here point out another small detail which is neverthe
less of importance in reference to the author s consistency of style.
In general he does not use the article with names of cities. It is
found only in 23 (24) out of about 250 instances, if I have not over
looked any ; in xxvi. 12 the article is not quite certain (among the
59 instances where Jerusalem is named the article only occurs once
in v. 28). In 13 of these instances the reason of the addition of
the article is obvious (ix. 3, 38 ; x. 8 ; xiii. 14 ; xvii. 13, 16 ; xviii.
1, 21 ; xix. 17 ; xx. 6 ; xx. 17 ; xxii. 6 ; xxiii. 31) ; for the city has
been mentioned just before and is now repeated with the article
(in many cases of course this is not done in spite of the repetition).
The instance in xiv. 21 also belongs to this group, indeed the
passage is especially characteristic : vrteTpe^av e/t rty Xvurpav *coJ
tit IKOVIOV Kal eii AvTi&xfiaf. The stay in Lystra had been shortly
before described in detail, therefore the article stands only with
this city. But there remain yet nine instances which do not admit
of this explanation. Of these xviii. 2 diri&gt; T^ Pii/u^s and xxviii.
14 et j rfjv Pw/njv are sufficiently explained by the fame and import
ance of the city (and besides in xxviii. 14 it is implied that St.
Paul had at last reached the goal of his ministry ; afterwards in
verse 16 we read: efs PiJcuijv). The article before Afri6x tia (* v -
23) is sufficiently explained by the circumstance that Syria and
Cilicia come afterwards. Of the six instances still remaining four
may be explained from the circumstance that they mark the neces
sary direction of the determined route which the Apostle took (vide
Llass) ; they occur in xvii. 1 ; xx. 13, 14 ; xxiii. 31 (notice again
the agreement of the we-sections with the whole work). The force
of the article in v. 28 (TTJV IfpovffaXrjfj,) and in xx. 16 (TTJV "Efao-ov)
is somewhat obscure ; but the author may very well have once
written ^ "E&lt;/&gt;e(roi for the same reason that he wrote ^ "PwyUT/, and
the article with Jerusalem in the mouth of the high-priest is prob
ably intended to signify: " this Jerusalem of ours."

62 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of the Diaspora were chiefly settled in the cities.
Hence we read in viii. 40 of St. Philip : ew/ yyeXtTero
ra? Tro Aa? Tra cra? (scil. of Philistia) ; again St. James
says (xv. 21) that Moses has Kara TTO\IV ev rat?
a-vvaywyal^ TOU? Krjpv&lt;jcrovTa&lt;i CIVTOV, and St. Paul
admits (xxvi. 11) that he persecuted the Christians
not only in Jerusalem, but also followed them up
even etV Ta? e^co TroAe*? ; St. Paul and Silas pass
through (xvi. 4) ret? Tro Aet? and revisit (xv. 86) Kara
TTO\IV Trdcrav the communities that were founded on
the first journey ; St. Paul declares that the Spirit
/caret TroXiv prophesied sufferings that were about to
come upon him (xx. 23), and TO TrXyOo? TU&gt;V irepi^
TroAecov lepova-aXrj/jL crowded into the city (v. 16) to
be healed by the apostles. It is characteristic of the
exactness of the author that he often marks the fact
that something took place outside the city. Stephen
was stoned eeo T^? TroAeto? l (vii. 58) ; the temple of
Zeus in Lystra was situated irpo TV? TroAew? (xiv. 13) ;
St. Paul was dragged eco T?;? TroAeto? (xiv. 19) ; the
place of prayer in Philippi lies eo&gt; r^s xwA&gt;;? (xvi. 13) ;
and the brethren and sisters in Tyre accompany
St. Paul eco? e^ct) T?? TroAew? (xxi. 5). Lastly, it is
a fine proof of the precision of the author that in
xiii. 50 he speaks of the irpwroi T&gt;?? TroAeeo? (in
Antioch of Pisidia), in xxv. 23 of those /car e ^o^v
T&gt;?9 TTd Aew? (in Caesarea of Palestine), and elsewhere of
the rulers of cities, but in the case of Philippi alone
does he call the magistrates of the city " &lt;rrparr]yoi "
(xvi. 20 ^!), and in the case of Thessalonica alone

1 Among both Jews and Gentiles executions took place as a rule
outside the city, vide Heb. xiii. 12, 13.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 63

(xvii. 6, 8), while he calls the governor
of Malta (xxviii. 7) 6 -TT/JWTO? TW vfyrov. These
names are correct, for in the Roman colony Philippi
praetors (duumviri) held sway, the title " Politarch "
is vouched for in Thessalonica by inscriptions, and
the title Trpcoros MeXmwW is found in an inscription
discovered in Malta (Inscr. Graec. Ital. et. Sicil. 601);
a certain Prudens an eques Romanus is there so de
scribed. We also learn from inscriptions that the
part which the official described as 6 ypa/uL/mareu?
(town-clerk) plays in Ephesus (xix. 35 f.) suits the
Ypa/j./jLarev^ in Ephesus, though it would not at all
suit the official of the same name in every other
city. 1

The use of TO TTO? is most varied, and yet even

1 All the other official titles in the book are correct. The monarch
is called, as iu Phil. iv. 22, simply 6 Kcu&lt;ra/&gt; (xvii. 7 ; xxv. 8-12, 21 ;
xxvi. 32 ; xxvii. 4 ; xxviii. 19) or 6 Zf/faorij (xxv. 21, 25), or is
simply described by one of his own names (xi. 28 ; xviii. 2). He is
never called BacnXefo, a title, however, rightly applied to Herod
(xii. 1, 20) and to Agrippa (xxv. 13, 14, 24 ; xxvi. 2, 7, 13, 19, 26,
27, 30). Sergius Paulus in Cyprus and Gallio in Corinth are rightly
called dvOuiraToi (xiii. 7, 8, 12 ; xviii. 12 ; [xix. 38]) ; on the other
hand this title is wanting, and rightly wanting, in the cases of
Felix and Festus ; each of these is called, as also in Josephus,
riyftJ-uv (xxiil 24, 26, 33, 34; xxiv. 1, 10; xxvi. 30). The term
iirapxia- ( = " provincia ") is found only in the mouth of Felix in his
question concerning St. Paul : IK volas tirapxfa* (xxiii. 34) and in
the clause (xxv. 1) : 4&gt;?&lt;rTos ^wi/Jaj r-g tirapxly [a strange use of
dative just as in xxvii. 2 : ^iri/Savres irXoty] elsewhere it is avoided.
The titles fKarovrapx^ (x. 1, 22; xxi. 32; xxii. 26, 26; xxiii. 17,
23 ; xxiv. 23 ; xxvii. 1, 6, 11, 31, 43 ; xxviii. 16) and x&lt;^ ia PXs
(xxi. 31-37 ; xxii. 24-29 ; xxiii. 10-22 ; xxiv. 7, 22 ; xxv. 23) are
correctly used. It is uncertain whether the Stratopedarch of
xxviii. 16 is original. The epithet " /cpdrwroj " is only employed
in addressing Felix and Festus (xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 25), and its
use in this instance is correct.

64 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

here one can establish the homogeneity of the author s
style. 1 It is used metaphorically in i. 25 (\afieiv TOV
TOTTOV T&gt;/9 &lt;5mKOwa?) and in xxv. 16 (TOTTOV cnroXoylas
\aj3etv) ; the Temple is called in vi. 13 and xxi. 28
o ayios TOTTo?, and in vi. 14 and xxi. 28 o TO TTOJ
otrro?, in vii. 7 o roVo? oSro? is to be understood
as referring to the Holy Land. In xvi. 3 01 TOTTOI
eKeivoi describes the region round Lystra and Iconium ;
likewise we read in XXVii. 2 etV TOV$ Kara ryv Acr/av
TO TTOU? and similarly in XXViii. 7 ra irepi TOV TOTTOV
e/ceivov. The word has a mysterious sound in i. 25 :
UTTO r^? aTrcKTToX)?? Trape/By Iova$ Tropevdyvai et? TOV
TOTTOV TOV ISiov, and even in xii. 17 : Heroo? ej*\6u&gt;v
eTropevOrj e/y eTepov TOTTOV (for TOTTO? = place, city, vide
XXVii. 8 ?j\6ofJ.ev ei&lt;? TOTTOV TLVO. Ka\ovfJ.evov KaXo^
Xi/xeVa?). Only once (xxi. 12) are the native inha
bitants of a city called ot CVTOTTIOI (the word is found
in Plato ; it is not one that is often met with).

(nine times). 2

The use of the word in iv. 36 Kirn-jcno? r. yevei,
xviii. 2 TLovTiKo? T. yevet, xviii. 24 A\eai&gt;Spev&lt;; T.
yevei, vii. 19 TO &lt;yeVo? ^/ULMV shows the consistency of
style in both halves of the book. The remaining
passages where the word occurs give it the significance

1 The passages (iv. 31 ; vii. 33, 49 ; xxvii. 29, 41) are neutral.

2 Similar words, which occur only rarely or only once, and are
therefore not fitted for use in comparison, are ra opta (for a region,
xiii. 50), i} (Trapxia (xxiii. 34 ; xxv. 1), rj olKov/j^vi} (xi. 28 ; xvii. 6,
31 ; xix. 27 ; xxiv. 5), &c. The use of TO, pepr) is, however, worthy of
note. In ii. 10 we read TO. fj.tpt) TTJJ Ai/3u7?s, in xix. 1 IlaDXos 5te\&uv
ra avuTepiKa /U^/JT;, and likewise in xx. 2 5ie\0wf TO. ^prj fKtlva (said of
Macedonia)

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 65

of race, not in the sense of nationality but of descent
(iv. 6 ; vii. 13 ; xiii. 26 ; xvii. 28, 29).

II. Terms of more Special Significance.

The list of nations in chapters ii. 5, 9-11 and
in vi. 9.

&lt;5e ev [?] lepova-aXtiiu. KCHTOIKOVVTCS l
ai Spe? ev\a/3ets OLTTO TTU^TO? e Ovov? TCOV VTTO TOV ovpavov
. . . lldpOoi /ecu MtjSoi teal AtAa/xirat KOI ol KO.TOI-
KOVVTC? Ttjv MecroTrora/x/ai [ lovSaiav ? Ap/meviav ?
"Evplav ? IvSlav ?~^ re /cal KaTTTra^o/c/at , TLovrov KOI
Tt)V A-trlav, typvytav re KOI Eta/x^uX/ai/, A tyvirrov KOI
ra iJ-epn r^f Ai^i;^? T^? K ara Kfp/i^y, KOI ol eTriSq/n-
Pcoju.aiot, lovSaioi re /caJ Trpocn ]\VTOi [Ko^re? KOI

After the first three national names St. Luke con
tinues with 01 KdToiKOvvTes, because there was no
national name for Mesopotamia ; but this has led
to a formal discrepancy with the preceding clause.
St. Luke is speaking simply of such persons as were
resident in Jerusalem (not of pilgrims for the feast),
yet he describes them most awkwardly as KaroiKovvrcs

v Meo-OTrorayU/av /c.r.X. after their former place of
abode. In its significance, therefore, the second KGLTOI-

vvres must be regarded as pluperfect. Moreover,
seeing that from Fontus onwards the author gives the
names in pairs and that lovSaiav though the reading
of all MSS. is senseless, while AjO/xew ai (Tertullian,
and once in Augustine), as well as 2/vpiav (Hieron.),
are evidently only attempts to clear away a difficulty

b 6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

which was felt already at an early date ; we must
therefore delete lovdatav. 1 We can of course give
no satisfactory explanation for the interpolation of
this word. The irregularity of the use of the article
in this section is surprising, so also the appended
Ko^T69 /cat "A0a/3e?, here also we must assume
an ancient gloss, for both the special mention of
these people and their combination together is ex
traordinary. The assumption of an interpolation
becomes yet more probable if the preceding words
" Iov&lt;5atot re /cat Trpoa-rfXvTOi " i belong not only to
" 01 e7ri$&gt;iju.ovvTe$ Putjuaioi" but to all the foregoing
national names, as is almost certainly the case. The
author had said at the beginning of the list that
he was concerned with those Jews now dwelling in
Jerusalem who had before lived in Parthia, Media,
&c. At the conclusion he says more exactly that
these included both Jews by birth and proselytes, and
this without doubt answered to the truth, and did
not apply only to Rome. Strange, lastly, is the
epithet " eTr/c^owre? " applied to ot Pco^uat ot. In
my opinion it finds its explanation in the fact that
01 PcofjLaioi could be understood as meaning " Roman
citizens" (vide Acts xvi. 37, 38; xxii. 25, 26, 27, 29;
xxiii. 27). St. Luke wishes to avoid this ambiguity.
Instead of ot eVt^/x. Pay*, he might also have written
ot KaroiKovvres TJ/J/ Pa&gt;/j.t]v (as in verse 9) ; but he
wished at the close to remind us that the people in
question throughout now dwelt in Jerusalem, though

1 Mesopotamia and Cappadocia could very well be mentioned
together for they are contiguous, and as the counting is from "East
to West this order is specially appropriate (vide infra another reason
for the omission).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 67

they were properly at home in other lands. Thus
" ot eirtSfj/novvTes Pu&gt;fji.atoi " does not mean " Romans
settled in Rome " (as Wendt and others would inter
pret), but " Romans who had migrated to Jerusalem
and had settled in that city " (so Overbeck). The
circumstance that after striking out louSaiav, K^rey,
and "Apafie? we are left with a list of twelve nations
confirms the omission ; i.e. the author perhaps in
tended to indicate that each apostle spoke in one of
these tongues. It is true that according to ii. 1 we
must suppose that the Holy Spirit descended upon
all the Christians in Jerusalem ; but nevertheless,
according to ii. 7, it is the Apostles alone who are
thought of. If we do not choose to accept this
hypothesis, it still follows that the number twelve of
the nations was purposely chosen.

The list begins with the nations in the remotest
East, where the tribes that had not returned to
Palestine were settled ; with Cappadocia it reaches
Asia Minor, which is described first from north to
west (Pontus and Asia) ; then in a parallel line
from the centre (Phrygia) to the south (Pamphylia).
Then the author passes to the real south of the
empire, and names again from east to west Egypt
and the parts of Libya about Cyrene. 1 Rome, as the
representative of the West, closes the list.

It is possible to argue with the author concerning his
reasons for naming one region and passing over another,
nit it will be difficult to make any point against him.

1 With /card Kvp^vrjv compare St. Luke r. 32 : Aevemji Kara, rbv
btrov A0WV, and Acts xxvii. 5 : ri&gt; irtXayos ri /card TTJV KtXwfov Ka.1

68 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

With relative completeness he begins with " Parthians,
Medes, and Elamites," because these nations were far
distant and dwelt outside the Roman Empire it
was the more important for him that their represen
tatives heard the new message ! These are followed
most appropriately by Mesopotamia and Cappadocia.
He naturally passed over Syria because it lay too
near, and because it was self-evident that numerous
Syrians were to be found in Jerusalem. Besides,
their language was so nearly allied to that spoken
in Jerusalem that for them the miracle, which the
author intends, was scarcely a miracle at all. If in
the case of Asia Minor the four countries, Pontus,
Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, are chosen for men
tion, one cannot but approve of the choice, seeing
that Cappadocia had been already mentioned : the
chief province in the north, the west, the centre, and
the south is thus marked. Could any one proceed on
a better plan ? With equal appropriateness he now
mentions Egypt and Cyrene and closes with Rome.
In the two former regions it was a matter of common
knowledge that the Jews had settled in especially
compact bodies ; and that the whole West should be
represented by Rome is not strange but rather what
one would expect in a Greek writer of the East.
The omission of the Balkan peninsula is less intel
ligible. It has been said that the author has not
included purely Greek regions in his list, because for
Greeks with their universally-spoken language the
miracle of Pentecost was no miracle at all, at
least they did not need such a miracle ; this explana
tion is ingenious but scarcely correct. The disciples

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 69

in their ecstasy spoke Aramaic, not Greek (v. 7 :
ov^t idov a-irairres OVTOL etartv oi AaAowre? Ya\i\aioi ;).
The Balkan peninsula (Macedonia and Achaia) is
passed over either because in this region, when com
pared with the others mentioned, the Jews were not
specially numerous, or because the author passing
naturally from Asia to Egypt and then to Cyrene
had now come so far to the west that he concluded
with Home. Besides, he did not wish to exceed the
number twelve (vide supra).

The formal construction of this passage is very
skilful and superior to that of the list given by Philo
(Agjippce ep. ad Caligirfam, Legat. ad Caium, 36),
which contains double the number of nations. The
author begins with the sonorous triplet, " Parthians,
Medes, and Elamites " ; then he follows with 4x2
nations, and the " oi eTriStj/uLovvTe? Pw/jiaiot, i.e. the
great Capital of the World, standing by itself, brings
the twelve to a very impressive conclusion. 1 We trace
here the literary skill of the Hellene. But how much
greater still does this skill appear when we place this
list of nations in the light of the aim which dominates
the whole work ! "EtcrecrOe /ULOV /ndprvpes ev re Icpov-
KOI ev Tracrfl ry lovSaia KOI ^a/mapia teal eco?
ys yqs f (i. 8). Gaprer a&gt;? yap ^Lf/j-aprvow
Ta Trepi e /xou e/V Iepouora\))/m, ovrta ere Set KOI V
Pw/jLrjv /uapTvptjtrai (xxiii. 11). YVUKTTOV ovv e&lt;TTa)
vfj.lv OTI TOIS eOve&lt;riv cnrea-TaXt] TOVTO TO crooTi /ptov TOV
Oeov avrol /cat a/foJcrovrat (xxviii. 28). On the
very threshold of a work, which was intended to

1 Cf. Iferm. Simil. ix. : the twelve bills = the twelve nations of
the world.

70 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

describe the realisation of this aim, is placed this list
of the nations of the known World, and we are told
how this great promise was at once fulfilled for their
representatives ! Could anything be more impressive ?
How many are there who could measure their art
against this writer ? And yet more, the barriers
of language are seen to be overthrown ! All under
stand the ecstatic speech inspired by the Spirit ! The
racial divisions of mankind are now abolished ; in
the new religion the consequences of the building ot
the Tower of Babel are seen to be annulled ! True,
this grand picture cannot stand investigation in cold
blood. The people of course all understood Aramaic ;
moreover, it is not even Aramaic alone which is in
question, but also a language of enthusiasm which
works by suggestion. But one does not think of this
at first. St. Luke takes up two facts of actual his
tory that Jews and proselytes out of all countries of
the world were resident in Jerusalem, and that on a
certain day, the day of Pentecost or shortly before
hand, a great multitude were won over to the Gospel
owing to a sudden outbreak of rapturous enthusiasm,
accompanied by ecstatic speaking, among the disciples
of Jesus these two facts the author works up with
consummate skill, so that they form as it were a
grand flourish of trumpets heralding the appearance
of the great theme of his work.

We have yet to compare this list of nations with
the statement of chapter vi. 9. Here we are told
of Libertines, men of Cyrene, of Alexandria, of
Cilicia and Asia, dwelling in Jerusalem. Unfortu
nately we cannot gain a quite clear conception of

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 71

the meaning of the words ; for St. Luke has not
expressed himself with precision. 1 They are, how
ever, important on this account, because here in a
context dealing with a simple succession of events
not a worked-up description witness is borne to
some representatives of the nations mentioned in ii.
9^*., namely men of Cyrene, Alexandria (Egypt), and
Asia. Hence Jews and proselytes from these regions
were really settled in Jerusalem, a circumstance which
is moreover probable in itself.

Palestine (Galilee, Judaea, the Philistian cities,
Samaria and Phoenicia).

If St. Luke, the author of the we-sections, was also
the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we learn
from his own account that he accompanied the Apostle
St. Paul to Jerusalem (chap, xxi.), and that about
two and a half years later he journeyed with him

1 The words run: 6.vtari]&lt;ia.v 64 rives rCiv IK TT?J ffvvaywyfjs rrjt
Xtyofj.f rrjs Ai^tprivuv Kal Kvpt}vatui&gt; Kal A\f^av5p(wv Kal r&v dirb
KAi/u a? Kal Ao-fai ffuvfarovvTei rif ?.Tf&lt;pav(f. According to the
simplest interpretation only one combined synagogue of Libertines
and of men of Cyrene and Alexandria, and in addition Jews of
Cilicia and Asia are here spoken of (the Libertines are usually
explained to be Jews who were once Roman captives taken in
war, and who then [either themselves or their descendants] had
returned to Jerusalem ; this explanation cannot be regarded as
satisfactory). But the combination, " Libertines, men of Cyrene
and of Alexandria, is very strange. It has therefore been supposed
that St. Luke has not expressed himself with accuracy ; and that
three different synagogues are intended. Some indeed think of
four synagogues in that they conceive of the men of Cilicia and
Asia as also belonging to a synagogue. Others again think of
one synagogue of the Libertines alone, leaving Ki /^ratW K.T.\. to
depend upon rivet.

72 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

from CcEsarea to Rome (chaps, xxvii. xxviii.). It is
more than doubtful whether he was with the Apostle
between these two dates, for the " we " breaks oft
directly after the arrival in Jerusalem, and first
appears again at the departure from Caesarea. The
explanation that the " we " does not appear in the
chapters in question (xxi. 19 xxvi. 32), because St.
Luke had nothing to relate in which he himself took
part as eye-witness is most improbable ; for he him
self relates that St. Paul when in Caesarea could
receive his friends without hindrance, and that they
were allowed to minister to him (xxiv. 23). There
must have been opportunity enough for St. Luke not
only to have visited the Apostle, but also to have
shared in experiences of his that were worthy of
record. Besides this he could have attended on the
various occasions when St. Paul appeared before the
procurator ; even here, however, he has not written
as an eye-witness. We may therefore assume that
St. Luke set foot indeed upon the soil of Palestine
and Jerusalem in company with the Apostle, but that
he left it again very soon. We accordingly expect
that he will show the amount of information con
cerning the country and city which a traveller is
wont to acquire after a short residence. And this
is just what we find in the work itself. Here, how
ever, we can only show that this is so in the case of
the information he gives us on geographical, topo
graphical, and ethnographical points.

TO yevo/u.evov p&gt;i/J.a. KO.& oX?/? rrjs
axo T^? laAtAcaa? yuera TO
o eKi ipv^ev Icoaf ^9 (x. 37) : the movement

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 73

started from Galilee (xiii. 31 : w&lt;^$// TO?? a-vvavafiaa-iv
avTw O.TTO T&gt;79 FaXiXa/a? e&lt;Y If/oowraX^/u) and first
spread over the whole of Juda?a. Jesus is 6 O.TTO
Na^apeO, 1 and the eleven apostles are addressed
(i. 11) as avSpe? Ya\i\aiot ; St. Luke at the same time
knows that the Galilaeans could be distinguished by
their dialect (ii. 7 ov^l $ov airairres OVTOI etcriv oi
XaXowre? Ta\i\aloi; cf. St. Mark xiv. 67, 70; St.
Matt. xxvi. 71, 73). When intending to give the
boundaries of Christendom in the first years after its
foundation, he says (ix. 31): 17 aaeXipria KaO oX&gt;/5 TJ/?
loucWa? KOI FaXiXa/a? KOI 2a/xa^&gt;/a?. A few times,
when we should have expected Galilee to be men
tioned with Judaea, it is wanting, possibly because it
is included in Judaea. Galilee plays no part in the
narrative of St. Luke it is merely a reminiscence
this, however, in all probability answers to actual
history. St. Paul never mentions Galilee and the
Galilean Christian communities in his epistles. Jeru
salem the capital became the exclusive determining

1 Thus only once in the book (x. 38), on the other hand six times
Irjffoh (X/xoTis) 6 Nofwpaibs (ii. 22 ; iii. 6 ; iv. 10 ; vi. 14 ; xxii. 8 ;
xxvi. 9) ; it is probable in itself bat that single passage is de
cisive that 6 Nafw/&gt;a?oj means one who was a native of Nazareth.
It is noteworthy that St. Paul never uses the expression, and that
it occurs only in the first half of the Acts, or rather the only two
passages in the second half where it occurs really belong, so far
as their subject is concerned, to the first half. The designation
"Jesus the Nazarene" is thus Palestinian, and is only used by
St. Luke in order to give the right colouring to the first half of his
book. His procedure, as is well known, is similar elsewhere. It is
only in the mouth of the Jewish orator Tertullus (xxiv. 5) that the
Christians are disdainfully called ^ TWV Rafapalwt&gt; a pfffis. A like
feeling is expressed in St. John i. 45 / Iriffouv T&V dir6 Nofap^r . . .
Kal tiff* &lt;U T NatfapcuJX K Nafap^r 6vi&gt;a.ra.i TI ayaObv tlvat.

74 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

centre of the movement soon after the Crucifixion
of our Lord. 1

Judaea is more frequently mentioned in the book.
There, and indeed ev Tracry ry lovSaia, the disciples are
to bear witness (i. 8). The adherents of Stephen are
scattered Kara raf ^opa? TJ/? lovSaias (viii. 1), i.e.
throughout the Holy Land (vide supra sub y^apa). With
the phrases eKK\r]&lt;rta KaO oA&gt;;? TJ/? lovSalas (ix. 31 ), 2 and
a.e\(pol oi OVTCS KCITO. Ttjv lovSaiav (xi. 1), and KCITOIK-
ovvres eV ry lovSaia aSeXcpol (xi. 29), we may compare
Gal. i. 22 : at eKK\t]crtai rfjs lovSaias and 1 Thess. ii. 14 :
at e/c/cX;&lt;r/a&lt; at ovcrai ev Tfl Ioi/&lt;Wa. It is noteworthy
that St. Luke realises that Caesarea does not belong
to Judaea in the proper sense of the word ; in xii. 19
and XXi. 10 he writes KareXOaiv CLTTO Ttjs Iov$aia&lt;? els
Kaicrapiav and KCLTtjXOev rz? O.TTO T^? Iou^a/a9 7rpo&lt;prJTt]9
[e&lt;V Kaio-a^o/av] respectively note the coincidence
here; XXi. 10 stands in a we-section ; but already,
from viii. 2640 ; ix. 32^1 one recognises that St.
Luke did not count Caesarea and the whole belt of
Philistian cities as belonging to Judaea, and yet he has
no inclusive name for the region ; in viii. 40 he writes :

1 In the history of the Church the expectation of the near
approach of the "Kingdom" has always had as a corollary the
assembling of believers at one single place. We may accordingly
assume that after the first appearances of our Lord in Galilee all or
almost all of His adherents betook themselves to Jerusalem, where
it was expected that the "Kingdom" would be revealed. Hence
Galilee passed at once quite into the background (St. Paul speaks
only of Churches in Judaea), and hence it is also explained why it
happened that the first appearances of the Risen Christ in Galilee
were replaced by appearances in Jerusalem. It was afterwards that
churches gradually formed themselves in Galilee.

2 The same expression: KuO fi\?/s rijt Iov5aias occurs also in x. 37.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 75

eupeOt] ej? v A^a&gt;TOi/, KOI Siep-^o/JLevos evijyye-
XiTero rof TroXe/? Tracrctf eco? TO? eAOeFv avrov ei&lt;t
Kaia-apiav, and in ix. 32: eyevero IleVjOov Siep-^o-
fjifvov Sia Trdvrwv [sell. all the brethren in the cities
of the Philistian coast] Kare\0eiv KOI TT/OO? rof9 ayiov?

TOf? KaTOlKOVVTCLS AfOOd.

Judaea occurs in some passages where we should
expect Jerusalem, and vice versd ; but this is scarcely
due to inaccuracy. That the Christian communities
of Juda?a in the first days, and for some considerable
time, were only relatively independent, indeed were
for the most part dependent upon the Church of
Jerusalem, and were, one might say, really identical
with that Church, is a fact which can be deduced
from the Pauline epistles, and which answers to the
natural course of development of all such organisa
tions : the mother community remained at first " the
Church," the rest were only in dependent filial rela
tionship to her. St. Luke thus shows himself well-
informed when in the cases in question he writes
Jerusalem for Judaea, and vice versd.

It is, however, believed that it can be proved that
the author has made a mistake in writing Judaea in
xxvi. 20 : St. Paul did not preach, as St. Luke makes
him say, in Judaea, not at least ev irao-fl -777 X&lt;*&gt;p(f TW
Iov$ala&lt;?. It cannot, in fact, be proved that he did
preach in Judaea, and before the time mentioned in
Gal. i. 22 he cannot have done so ; but why may he
not have proclaimed the Gospel in this region on the
occasion of later visits when he was journeying from
Antioch or Cacsarea to Jerusalem ? For this ministry
days, not weeks, were quite sufficient, and he himself

76 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

says (Rom. xv. 19): UHTTC ju.e cnro IepovaraXtifJi . . .
Treir\t]pU!Kva.i TO evayyeXiov TOU Xpi(TTOv.

The centre of Judaea and of Christendom is Jeru
salem. Here the name given to the city by St. Luke
is of itself a matter of the deepest interest. 1 As is
well known St. Mark uses without exception the name
Icpo(r6\vjj.a, so also St. Matthew (for the single pas
sage where lepova-dXrj/u. occurs [xxiii. 37] belongs to a
quotation), 2 and St. John. On the other hand, St.
Paul and St. Luke use sometimes Iepo&lt;r6\v[jLa and
sometimes lepovcraXrjju. 3 again a proof of their
mutual relationship. In St. Paul s case we can with
out difficulty discern the rule which guides his use of
the respective names : where Jerusalem has religious
significance (Gal. iv. 25, 26), and in passages of special
solemnity where the Apostle thinks of the " saints "
in Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25, 26, 31 ; here Jerusalem is
everywhere combined with ot ayioi) he writes lepov-
o-aX?/yU, i.e. he chooses the Hebrew name, elsewhere he
writes Iepo&lt;To\v/uLa (Gal. i. 17 : av^XQov eiV Iepo&lt;T.,
likewise i. 18 ; ii. 1 avefiqv ? le^oocr.). Two instances
only are left which do not seem to conform to the rule.
In Rom. xv. 19 we read : axrre /JLC cnro lepovcraXrju
/ecu KUK\(I) ftexpt TOV I\\vpiKCv 7re7r\r]pa)KGi ai TO evayye-
\iov, and 1 Cor. xvi. 3 : 01)9 av SoKi/uLaa-tjTe &lt;V eTncrro-
\u&gt;v TOVTOVS 7rejui.\ls(i) cnreieyKetv Tt]v X ( *P IV VfJ.&lt;iav [the
alms that had been collected] V Icpova-aXrj/ui.. But
in the second instance St. Paul is thinking of the

1 Of. Ramsay in The Expotitor, 1907, p. HO/.

J Vide my work " The Sayings of Jesus," Williams & Norgate,
1908, pp. 29, 143, 103 /., 168 /.

8 In the Apocalypse only Iepov&lt;ra\r)(j. is found (iii. 12 ; xxi. 2, 10).
So also in Hebrews (xii. 22).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 77

saints in Jerusalem, and has therefore chosen the
more sacred name ; and in the first instance his feel
ing of reverent wonder at the grandeur of the work
that had been accomplished through him may have
led him to write the name lepoua-aX^fji.

In regard to St. Luke^ usage in the Acts the
matter is not quite so simple. First let us give a
statistical summary of the occurrences of the two
names : l

Chaps, i. vii. Iepo&lt;roXv/u.a once; lepova-aXrj/u.

eleven times.
Chaps, viii.-xv. Icpoa-oXv/na five times; Iepov&lt;ra\&gt;i/j.

fifteen times.
Chaps, xvi. xxi. (without thewe-sections) -- leoocro-

\v/ma twice ; Iepou&lt;TaXq/u. twice.
The we-sections -- lepocroXv/ma four times ; lepou-

craX^fj. three times.

Chaps, xxii. xxviii. Iepo(r6\vjj.a, ten times; lepov-
six times.

Here the first thing to notice is that St. Luke
uses lepova-aXi ifi (thirty-seven times) very much
more frequently than lepoa-oXv/j-a (twenty-two times).
Seeing, however, that in his gospel he has written
lepoaoXu/ma only four times (ii. 22 ; xiii. 22 ; xix.
28 ; xxiii. 7) while he writes lepoixraX^/m. twenty-six
times, and seeing that almost the same ratio obtains
in the first half of the Acts (^IepocroXvfjt.a six times,
lepova-aXij/ui. twenty-six times), it is at once evident

1 The manuscripts of course vary, yet in each particular case
it is possible with the highest degree of probability to ascertain
which form St. Luke chose. We here leave D out of consideration.

78 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that the author who, even as a Hellene, loved to
imitate the antique style of sacred literature, had an
especial affection for lepovaraXSjim. In his gospel
and in Acts i. xv. taken together, lepova-aXijju. occurs
fifty-two times, lepocroXv/ma only ten times.

The second thing to notice is that the problem is
the same for the we-sections as for the whole book.
If the author of the we-sections is not identical with
St. Paul we should have to assume three writers who
varied between lepocroXf/xa and lepovcraXrj/ui. unless
indeed we assume that St. Luke has carefully worked
through his source correcting it and bringing it into
conformity with the rest of his work even in this
point ! But who will believe this !

In regard to the rule which governs the use of
these two forms of the name in the Acts of the
Apostles, something can be learned from the gospel.
Here St. Luke in the parts which he has in common
with St. Mark or St. Matthew, or with both, has in
the first place written lepova-dXv/u. where these have
Iepo(To\v/jt.a ; in the second place he has often inserted
Jerusalem where they do not give the name of the
city. lepocroXv/uLa is only used by him in the gospel
where he has no source before him, and in the purely
geographical sense (ii. 22 : avryyayov avrov et? lepocr.,
xiii. 22 : SteiropeueTO Kara Tro Aef? KOI /co^ua? . . .
Tropeiav 7roiovfji.evo$ ei? lepoa-.J, xix. 28 : eTropevero
e/u.pocr6ei&gt; aj/a/3a:Va)v a? lepocroXv/ma, xxiii. 7 : TT/JO?
JUpwStjv OVTO. KOI avrov ev lepoa-.J. lepova-aXrjju. is
thus for him the more sacred name, and, because
almost the whole narrative of the gospel is noble
and sacred, it is the proper word for constant use.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 79

The same attitude towards the names is plainly discern
ible in chapter* i.-rii. of the Acts and in the we-sections.
In the former passage (chapters i. vii.) the author
has only once written lepocroXv/jLa (in the introduction
i. 4), where he tells us that our Lord commanded
His disciples not to depart at once from the place
Jerusalem (UTTO lepoo-o\v/u.h)v ju.r) -^wpi^ecrOai) ; as for
the rest of the passage everything in the early history
of the Church is of so lofty a character that he
only speaks of Iepov&lt;ra\) ]/m (eleven times). In the
we-sections the reason of the variation between the
two forms of the name is quite evident : in XX.
16 ; xxi. 4, 15, 17 lepoa-oXv/ma is written because the
author is concerned simply with topographical notices
(St. Paul wished to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost ;
St. Paul ought not to go up to Jerusalem ; we took
our journey up to Jerusalem ; when, however, we
arrived at Jerusalem). But among these verses stands
a saying of the prophet Agabus ; here we read in oratio
directa (xxi. 11). TOV avtipa . . . ofaowut ev leoou-
a-aXrjfj. oi lovdaloi, and now the bystanders take up
this word Iepov&lt;ra.\i]/u. (xxi. 12), and also St. Paul says
(xxi. 13) : airoOaveiv ei? Iepov(ra\&gt;i/u. eTOi/JL&lt;a$ *X M
The Biblical form lepovo-aXi ifjt. alone suited the
solemnity of the whole scene. This may seem to us
somewhat petty ; and so it is. So ultra-refined was
the feeling of the stylist St. Luke ! Let there then
be no doubt that he who wrote the gospel and
Acts i. vii. also wrote the we-sections ! The manner
in which the two forms of the name for Jerusalem
are used is enough to show it.

At first sight the variation between the two forms

80 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

in chapters viii. xxviii. (omitting the we-sections)
appears to present greater difficulty. We are con
cerned with seventeen passages in which lepocroXvjma
is read. Obviously lepocroXuiaa is more frequently
used since the narrative is no longer concerned with
the earliest history of the Church of Jerusalem, and
at the end, although the scene of action again returns
to the soil of Palestine, \epowa\rnj. is yet less frequently
used than Iepoa-d\vju.a. But even in chapters xxii
xxviii. where the former occurs only six times, while
the latter occurs ten times, it is still possible to
observe a peculiar and quite invariable rule. In xxii.
5, 17, 18; xxiii. 11; xxv. 3 tee read lepovcraXij/ui.,
Jbr here Jerusalem is spoken of in Jerusalem itself; in
xxv. 1, 7, 9, 15, 20, 24 ; xxvi. 4, 10, 20 ; xxviii. 17
we read Iepo&lt;ro\u/ut.a, t for Jerusalem is here spoken oj
in Ccesarea and (xxviii. 17) in Rome. The place where
the scene is located, not the speaker, makes the differ
ence : St. Paul speaks in Jerusalem of Jerusalem, in
Caesarea and Rome of Hierosolyma. 1 There accord
ingly remain for consideration only seven more
passages where lepotroXvjma is found, namely viii. 1,
14, 25 ; xi. 27 ; xiii. 13 ; xvi. 4, and xix. 21 (iepovaa-
\YHJL occurs seventeen times in these chapters, namely
viii. 26, 27; ix. 2, 13, 21, 26, 28; x. 39; xi. 2, 22;
xii. 25 ; xiii. 27, 31 ; xv. 2, 4 ; xx. 22 ; xxi. 31).
Evidently Iepovara\i ]/u. is still the rule in this part
of the Acts. The rule is broken where the scene

1 In chapters xxii.-xxviii. (in sixteen instances) there is only one
exception, namely xxiv. 11 ; here one would expect " Hierosolyma,"
yet we read "Jerusalem." But this exception proves the rule:
St. Paul speaks of irpoaKwelv in Jerusalem ; this suggested the use
of the sacred form (cf. viii. 27 : irpovKwrio-uv els lepow.).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 81

of action tends towards Samaria or is situated there
(viii. 1, 14, 25) ; again when the narrator takes his
stand in Antioch (xi. 27), in Perga (xiii. 13), in
Lycaonia (xvi. 4), and in Ephesus (xix. 21); but
seeing that in these sections St. Luke under the same
conditions also speaks of lepoua-aXy i/ui, no fixed rule
can be here established. We must confess that the
variation in chapters viii. xxi. omitting the we-
sections is not to be explained, i.e. that St. Luke
here (though he prefers lepova-aX^/n.) keeps to no
rule ; but in chapters i. vii., in the we-sections, and
in xxii. xxviii. his rule can be clearly discerned. And
yet the number of instances (where lepoo-oXv/uia. is
used) where the rule is not clear is not more than
seven.

In regard to the knowledge of Jerusalem and
Judaea the passages wherein the author betrays a
certain knowledge of his own are no less numerous in
the Acts than in his gospel. The gospel contains an
important body of traditions connected with Jerusalem
and Juda?a, and peculiar to St. Luke, which it is
probable that the author acquired on the spot. One
does not write in a gospel passages like : KWJU.II aire-
%ov&lt;ra. (TTdSlovs cfy iKovra cnro lepovaraXij/ji., ft ovo/ma
Ei/u./jLaous unless one has been oneself on the spot.
But we also read in the Acts (i. 12) : rare u
\l/av et$ Iepov(ra\&gt;iiu. cnro opov$ TOV KaXov/uevov
o &lt;TTII&gt; eyyv? lepovcraXtj/u. &lt;ra/3/3dTov e-^ov o&ov, again
(i. 19) : oJTTe K\riQrivai TO yiapiov e/rVo 777 StaXcKTO)
^, TOUT f&lt;mv yjepiov af/AUTOs, again
(viii. 26) : -wopcvov KCLTO. /j-eur^ftpiav eirl TTJV 6Sov T^V
a-rro lepova-aXr/n c&lt;V Fa^a^ avrt] evriv

82 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

ep&gt;]/ut.os. 1 The trepi^ TroXeis IepovaraXv/u. (v. 16) might
also be mentioned here. St. Luke, moreover, knows
of a definite v-rrepwov in which the first disciples were
wont to assemble ; 2 he mentions the house of the
mother of John and Mark (xii. 12 : ov yjvav iKavoi
crvvti6potcr[JLvoi KOI Trpocrev^o/j.evoi) ; he has a definite
conception of the locality of the prison where St.
Peter was confined and of its distance from the house
just mentioned (xii. 10/". : $ie\Q6vTe&lt;; &lt;5e 7rp(ort]V (frv\a-
xrjv KOI evTepav fjXQav eir\ T&gt;]V 7ru\t]i&gt; T)]i&gt; a-iSrjpav TIJV
(pepovtrav ei? TtfV TroXiv . . . KOI e^eXOovTe? 7rpo&gt;j\9ov
/JLiav . . . KOI 6 flerpo? . . . ?)\0cv eVt
oiKiav rrjs Map/ay). Had he visited St. Paul
in this same prison ? He knows the gate of the
Temple, which Joscphus (Bellum, v. 5, 3) also calls the
" Beautiful Gate " (iii. 2, 10 : f] Oupa rov tepou fj \eyo-
copaia) and Solomon s Porch (iii. 11; v. 12 : fj
a ff Ka\ov/j.evq SoXoyUwi To?), which is also men
tioned in St. John (x. 23) and by Josephus (" Antiq.,"
xx. 9, 7). 3 He knows of the (priestly) err pciTijyos rov
iepov (iv. 1 ; v. 24, 26), likewise of the cohors Romana
auxiliaris, which was stationed in the citadel Antonia
(xxi. 31^.); he is acquainted with the situation of

1 It can scarcely be meant that the road was deserted at the
given time; for that KO.TO. /j.f(rrifj.j3piat&gt; means "mid-day," and not
" towards the south," is not probable, in spite of Nestle (Stud. u.
Krit., 1892, s. 335/.). The most probable meaning of the passage
is that the road was always deserted, that is, passed through a desert
region ; in spite of this the Evangelist was to go along it. St. Luke,
if he has added this note, must have known the road.

3 He did not, however, know or did not think it necessary to tell
us the exact locality in which the event recorded in ii. 1 ff. took
place.

3 Knowledge of the Temple is also presupposed in xxi. 30.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 83

the centra in relation to the Temple, indeed even with
the avafiaOfioi (xxi. 34, 37, 40). He has such correct
knowledge of the Sadducees that he writes with pre
cision (v. 17) : 6 ap-fcifpevs Kat Trai/re? ol avv ai/rct?, r\
ovtra aipe&lt;Tis TCOI/ 2*a^0ouca/cp. Similarly, he shows
himself well informed concerning the Pharisees ; he
knows that both parties were represented in the
Sanhedrin (xxiii. 6) ; he knows the question on which
the Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed (xxiii. 7):

a$$ovKatoi ju.ei&gt; yap \cyovcriv /my eivai avaa-racriv /UT/re
ayye\ov /u?/re Trvev/j-a., Qapiarcuoi oe o/J.o\oyovcnv TO.

Jifporepa. It is known to him that a considerable
number (vi. 7 : TroXi/? 0^X09) of both priests and also
Pharisees (xv. 5) had joined the Christian community
in Jerusalem, that the latter demanded that Gentile
Christians in the Diaspora should be circumcised and
observe the Law (foe. c^.),and that the Jewish Christians
in Palestine, in spite of the decree of the Council of
Jerusalem, all remained fyXwral rov VOJULOV (xxi. 20).
He knows that of the ypa/m/uLareis (iv. 5 ; vi. 12) a
part belonged to the Pharisees and a part did not
(xxiii. 9). He tells us that the Pharisee Gamaliel

ytuof Travri TU&gt; \au) interfered to a certain extent
in favour of the Apostles (v. 34 y.), and that during
the proceedings against St. Paul the Pharisees took
his part against the Sadducees (xxiii. 9). It is not
unknown to him (xxi. 27 ; xxiv. 18) that it was not
so much native Jews, but Asiatic Jews, present in
Jerusalem, who instigated the assault upon St. Paul in
that city. It is not from St. Paul that we learn any
thing concerning the dispute between the "Hebrews"
and the "Hellenists 1 1 in the Primitive Community, or

84 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

concerning the choice of the " Seven " and their
names, or concerning the heroic Stephen and his
teaching against the Temple, 1 or concerning the
gradual preparation for the transformation of Chris
tian Judaism into Christianity which underlies all
these events in the history of the Church of Jeru
salem, but only from St. Luke (chaps, vi. vii.) ; and
it is St. Luke, not St. Paul, who, in the story of
Ananias and Sapphira, has painted the shadows into
the portrait of the " saints " of Jerusalem and makes
us suspect many other shadows. All these things in
the first place, the topographical statements ; in the
second place, the more .intimate acquaintance with
the early history of the Church in Jerusalem admir
ably agree with the information afforded by St. Luke
himself, that he came to Jerusalem with St. Paul
(and there shared with the Apostle the hospitality of
an "old disciple, Mnason of Cyprus,"" xxi. 15, 16).
We have already mentioned what other knowledge he
had of Judaea. Let it be added that he knows that
it took two days to travel from Jerusalem to Caesarea
by way of Antipatris (about 62 miles). 2 Of the
cities on the coast Caesarea and the towns lying to
the south, the former is mentioned fifteen times in
the book. St. Luke himself landed there (xxi. 8) ;

1 Also chap. xxi. 28 is important from this point of view ; here
it is the Temple which is most thought of.

2 Chap, xxiii. 31 /. This was not the first time that St. Paul had
gone from Jerusalem to Cajsarea ; already in ix. 30 we are told that
the brethren escorted him thither from Jerusalem ; in xviii. 22,
however, we must not suppose that a journey from Csesarea to
Jerusalem and thence to Antioch is implied. Neither, on the other
hand, was Ca?sarea the goal of this journey; but the ship, in
which St. Paul voyaged to the East, was bound for Czesarea.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 85

he knows it as the abode and centre of activity of
the Evangelist St. Philip (loc. clt. and viii. 40); he speaks
of the Church in that city (xviii. 22) and the brethren
there (xxi. 16), also of the Praetorium which Herod
the Great had built there (xxiii. 35) ; and he knows
that St. Paul was confined there in mild imprison
ment. That the cnreipa fj KaXov/Jievt] \ra\iKtj was
stationed in Caesarea is, according to x. 1, quite
probably meant by St. Luke ; yet we cannot be
certain that this was his meaning, and it is still less
certain that St. Luke has here made a mistake (as
Schiirer contends, Gesch. des jtid. Volks, I. 3 s. 462 f.).
The first missionary station of St. Philip in the
southern cities seems to have been Azotus (viii. 40) ;
thence he worked through the principal towns until
he transferred his seat to Caesarea (loc. tit.). Other
places mentioned are Lydda (with Sharon) l and Joppa
(ix. 32/!, 36 ff".), with their Christian communities.
They are specially mentioned because two great
miracles were wrought in them by St. Peter. In
spite of the exact statements that Lydda was nigh to
Joppa (ix. 38), and that St. Peter dwelt in Joppa " in
the house of one Simon a tanner, &&amp;gt; CVTIV OIKIO. irapa.
6d\aar&lt;rav " (ix. 43; x. 6, 17) tanning was an un
cleanly trade 2 the narratives do not give the
impression that St. Luke himself had been in those
parts. He speaks here on the strength of information
the source of which was very near at hand. The first

i The plain of the coast stretching northwards from Lydda and
Joppa is meant.

1 If St. Peter enters into a house on the seashore and stays there
along time (ijntpat tKavdt, ix. 43), we may perhaps assume that his
trade of fisherman iulluenced him. He was no tanner.

86 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

great success of the mission was not, however, in the
parts of southern Palestine, but in Samaria. The
Christian Hellenists dispersed by the persecution con
cerning Stephen and the same Philip who afterwards
became the missionary of the Philistian cities, won
over this region (viii. i. 5 ff.}. The rejoicing concern
ing this first success is already reflected in i. 8 (ev
Tfl louSala Kal ^a/mapla, then follows at once
T&gt;?9 y&gt;]9, cf- ix. 31 : 77 e/ocA)/&lt;na Ka9 6X;? TJ/? louocua?
. . . KOI Sci/zapa?? also xv. 3), again in viii. 14 :
SeSeKTai f] 2ayUao/a TOV \6yov TOU Oeov, and in the
emphasis laid upon the fact that here the gospel had
won its way into many villages (viii. 25) ; but even
in the gospel of St. Luke we may trace a reflection of
this conversion of Samaritans (ix. 52 ; x. 33 ; xvii.
11, 16, but see also St. John iv. 39y.). Yet on the
other hand, it is obvious that St. Luke had not him
self seen the country so as to have a clear conception
of its topography ; he speaks only from second-hand
information concerning " the city " (viii. 5), " the
people " of Samaria (viii. 9), and the Church in that
country. In reference to Tyre, Ptolemais, and Sidon
(XXi. 3/. 7 ; XXVii. 3) we hear that St. Luke, together
with the Apostle, had learned something of the churches
in these cities on flying visits. In Tyre their reception
was especially hearty. The general name " Phoenicia "
occurs thrice (xi. 19 ; xv. 3 ; Xxi. 2) in the Acts. In
the second passage it stands together with Samaria ;
in the first (according to viii. 1) Samaria is also to
be supplied : Si&gt;]\6ov [from Samaria] e&lt;o? ^omV?;? KOI
KUTT/OOU /ecu AvTfOYe/a? at that time the foundation
of the Phoenician Church was laid by those who had

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 87

been driven from Jerusalem ; this Church, however, was
at first according to xi. 19 purely Jewish-Christian ;
the third passage is purely geographical. Phoenicia,
like Judaea and Samaria, appears as an independent
ecclesiastical " province," which cannot be said of the
Philistian cities, 1 and to it we must also assign
Damascus. Concerning this city St. Luke possesses
special information, however improbable it is that he
himself visited it. He knows that it had several
synagogues (ix. 20), that one of its streets was
called " &gt;/ ei)$a " (ix. II), 2 and that St. Paul took
up his abode there in the house of a man named
Judas.

Syria and Cilicia.

In the Acts Syria is mentioned three times purely
geographically as the goal of the journeys of St. Paul
(xviii. 18 : f^tTrXet e/y Tt]V ^vpiav, XX. 3 : avayea-Qai
e/y Tqv SfjO/ay, XXi. 3 : eTrXeo/xev ety Tr\v ^&gt;vpiav
notice here the consistency of expression, which was
by no means a matter of course) ; in the two other
passages, where it again occurs, it stands just as
in Gal. i. 21 together with Cilicia (xv. 23, 41), and
here we learn that the two provinces in St. Luke s

1 This answers to what we know of the later circumstances.
The south-western cities of Palestine, including Caesarea, did
not form a proper ecclesiastical province, but were included with
Judaea.

* H pvfj-r) i) Ka\ovfj.^vf] tvOfta. This use of Ka\(iff0ai is char
acteristic in regard to the consistency of St. Luke s style. It
occurs about fifteen times in the gospel and likewise fifteen times
in the Acts, including four times in the we-sections (xxvii. 8, 14,
16 ; xxviii. 1).

88 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

view formed a single ecclesiastical district. 1 It is
the first great Gentile Christian district ; in its centre
stands Antioch and the church in that city. The
foundation of this church forms the goal towards
which the narrative tends even from vi. 1 ff. z St.
Luke shows himself well informed concerning this
community, 3 and regards it as, after Jerusalem, the
second capital of Christendom. 4 He relates that

1 This answers to the development in succeeding times, but also
to the political situation in the time of St. Luke. Cilicia is yet
again mentioned as the native country of St. Paul (xxi. 39 ; xxii.
3 ; xxiii. 34). In vi. 9 it stands together with Asia (Jews of
Cilicia and Asia resident in Jerusalem), in xxvii. 5 with geo
graphical propriety together with Pamphylia (TO Tre Xayos T& KO.TO.
rrjv KiXiKiav Kal T[a/j.^&gt;v\iav). Even in such small points St. Luke
exhibits knowledge and conscientious care. This variation in
the /coupling of the province with other provinces is highly char
acteristic.

2 In this connection it is also most significant, that the native
place of only one of "the Seven" is mentioned (vi. 5: Nt/c6\aos

3 St. Luke knows nothing, or at least has told us nothing, of the
Christian community in Tarsus. He only says that St. Paul came
from that city and possessed the right of citizenship (Tapcrei/s) there
(ix. 11 ; xxi. 39 ; xxii. 3), that the brethren of Jerusalem dispatched
him thither by way of Cassarea (ix. 30), and that after a seemingly
long ministry St. Barnabas brought him thence to Antioch. The
statement agrees admirably with Gal. i. 21.

* Of other Syrian cities St. Luke mentions only Seleucia, the
haven of Antioch (xiii. 4), and that casually, without stating
whether it possessed a Christian community. It is part of the
author s literary custom to give the names of the havens, &lt;/. the
mention of Attalia (xiv. 25) of Neapolis (xvi. 11), of Cenchreae
(xviii. 18). In xvii. 14 we read efaTreVretXav ol d.5e\&lt;f&gt;ol iropevfaOai ?ws
lirl Tyv OdXaaaav. It may well be that St. Paul, in order to guard
against plots, embarked at a point of the coast that lay out of the
way (Ramsay, " St. Paul the Traveller" [1897], p. 70, 233, explains
otherwise).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 89

its foundation was Gentile Christian, 1 and mentions
its founders ; 2 he knows that at the very begin
ning it was extraordinarily flourishing (xi. 21 : TTO\U&lt;;
apiO/uLos), that through the ministry of Barnabas,
who came thither from Jerusalem, 3 it grew yet
stronger (xi. 22-24), and that then for the space
of a year it received instruction from St. Barnabas
and St. Paul, whom the former had brought from
Tarsus (xi. 25, 26). 4 He moreover knows (loc. cit.)
that the name " Christians " arose in Antioch of
course invented by opponents ; neither St. Paul nor
the four Evangelists use it ; he knows an episode in
the primitive history of the community their offer
ing on behalf of the brethren in Judaea ; 5 and he has

1 There exists a formal discrepancy between xi. 19 and xi. 20
(. . . Avrioxfi-o-s, nySevi XaXoOvres rbv \byov el ^TJ louoafois and A0&lt;Wei
e/j A.vrit)x eLav AdXow Kal irpbs Tovs"~E\\rjvas), but the discrepancy is
only brought about by stylistic awkwardness. We need not conclude
therefrom that there must have been here two sources. Similar cases
of pardonable awkwardness are also found elsewhere in the book.

* Chap. xi. 19 : Some men of Cyprus and Gyrene of the number
of those driven from Jerusalem. St. Barnabas the Cypriote did not
belong to them ; for it was not till later that he entered upon the
mission in Antioch. On the other hand, the " old disciple " Mnason
the Cypriote (xxi. 6), with whom St. Paul lodged at Jerusalem,
may have belonged to them. St. Paul may even on this account have
claimed his hospitality, because he had known him of old in Antioch.

3 It is strange that Barnabas, who had been already mentioned
at an earlier period, should here be again specially described (xi. 24).
It may well be that the author wished in this way to explain and
to emphasise the grandeur and the success of his work in Antioch.

4 St. Luke thus distinguishes quite plainly three stages in the
early history of the Church in Antioch.

8 The importance which St. Luke seems to assign to this offering
appears in an especially clear light if we remember what stress St.
Paul laid upon the collections for Jerusalem. St. Paul continues
what the Christians of Antioch had begun.

90 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

knowledge of the college of prophets and teachers in
Antioch (xiii. 1) : Barnabas, Simeon, surnamed Niger,
Lucius of Cyrene, Mnason, once an intimate acquaint
ance of Herod the Tetrarch, and Paul. The great
missionary journey of St. Barnabas and St. Paul he
regards as an undertaking of the Church of Antioch
(xiii. 1 ff- OL eKTrejucfrOeitTes, xiv. 26 f. : ave-irXevvav ei$
A.vTioyeiav, oOev rj&lt;rav r 7rapaeo/J.evoi 77; ^upiri TOV
6eov els TO epyov o e7r\i)pu&gt;arav. Trapayevo/JLevoi e KOI
arvvayayovTes Ttjv e/c/cX&gt;;criav, avi jyyeXXov bora TTOlt}&lt;rV
6 6eos /J-er 1 avTcov, KCLI OTL rjvoi]*ev roFf eQvecriv Ovpav
TTiWefo?). That the great controversy between the
primitive community of Jerusalem and St. Paul was
a controversy between Jerusalem and Antioch cannot
be suspected from the Epistle to the Galatians ; it is
St. Luke who says this, and even expressly tells us
that it was the Church of Antioch that had the high
courage to take up the matter " officially," and that
sent St. Paul and St. Barnabas with some others as
delegates to Jerusalem (01 ae\&lt;pol erafav avafiaiveiv
TlavXov K.T.\. ol 7rpoTre/u.(p6evTes VTTO Tijf e/c/cX&gt;;cr/a9,
xv. 1 /. 3). In the decree of the Council of Jeru
salem the city of Antioch therefore is put first, then
follow Syria and Cilicia (xv. 23). The city appears
henceforth as so to say St. Paul s new home, whither
again returns after his so-called second missionary
journey (xviii. 18, 22). Only then does it vanish
from the narrative.

The picture of this Church which one thus gains
from the Acts of the Apostles is a very impressive,
significant, and imposing one ; and yet the Pauline
epistles tell us nothing about it, with the exception of

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 91

the painful scene of Gal. ii. 11 f. The representation
given in the Acts fills a tremendous gap which has
been left by the Pauline epistles. Indeed, we could
not even suspect how great the gap is unless we pos
sessed the accounts of St. Luke ! Yet in these
accounts there is nothing of that vivid distinctness
which is to be found in most of the descriptions of
the second half of the book ; moreover, the actual
amount of facts here recorded is not very great. The
narrative depends not upon the personal experience
and the eye-witness of the writer, but upon tradition. 1
We can control this tradition scarcely at a single
point; 2 yet it contains nothing, so far as I can see,
which is untenable, and much on the other hand which
bears the stamp of trustworthiness. Abstract specu
lations concerning what may possibly be incorrect, or
speculations which on a priori presuppositions would
eliminate details of the tradition, are worthless.

The extraordinary prominence given to Antioch in
the Acts may have been due to the actual importance
of that Church, 8 but the ancient record that St.

1 Even for this reason the " we " of codex D in xi. 28 is certainly
not original; vide Sitzu ngsber. dcr K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch.,
1899, April 6.

1 If one restricts the old controversy, concerning the relationship
of Gal. ii. to Acts xv. , to Gal. ii. 1-2, and Acts xv. 1-4 and it is
only with these verses that we are here concerned we may declare
that the two passages do not exclude one another. More than this
cannot of course be said.

8 Only after a comprehensive investigation of the sources of the
first half of the book can it be ascertained how far the literary
purpose of the author has contributed to give more prominence to
Antioch than was given in his source. It is a priori possible that
St. Luke has brought important questions into relationship with
Autioch which really had no connection with that city.

92 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Luke was a native of Antioch still remains most
worthy of note in this connection. It of course does
not therefore follow that he was ever a member of
the Christian community of Antioch ; indeed, the
form in which this ancient record has come down to
us is not even favourable to such a supposition.

Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lyeaonia.

It is characteristic of the first mission of St. Paul
and St. Barnabas in these regions that no dates are
given. This in itself is a proof that the tradition
from which St. Luke here draws was no longer exact.
This conclusion is confirmed upon closer examination.
St. Luke here only possessed the plan of the route
and some anecdotes of the mission. More exact
information concerning definite persons (eminent
Christians, magistrates, hosts, &c.) are entirely want
ing. " The Jews," " the Greeks," and some other
generalities of these he and his readers must make
what they can. 1

The description of the journey across Cyprus,
whither the first missionaries had come from Jeru
salem at a very early date and before the ministry of
St. Paul, through the city Salamis here St. Luke
knows of the existence of several Jewish synagogues
(xiii. 5) and Paphos, is correctly given (xiii. 5, 6).
That the proconsul resided in Paphos is also correct.
Nothing is told us of St. Paul s success in Cyprus
(with the exception of the gaining over of Sergius

1 Ramsay, " St. Paul," p. 89 ff., reads an incredible amount of in
formation between the lines of chaps, xiii. and xiv. , and entirely
ignores the general want of precision throughout these chapters.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 93

Paulus). The mission in Cyprus taken up again
some years later by St. Barnabas and St. Mark is
immediately followed (xiii. 14) by the mission in
Antioch of Pisidia (the seaport Attalia is first men
tioned in xiv. 25 on the return journey, when the
mission in Perga is also recorded ; Perga is only men
tioned in xiii. 13 because St. Mark here separated
himself from St. Paul). 1 The choice of a place of
only moderate importance as the base of the mission,
and generally the decision to start the mission to
Asia Minor in Pisidia and Galatian Phrygia a
country that could be reached from the Pamphylian
coast only by a long and dangerous journey imply
on the one hand the foregoing of a ministry to
Hellenes, and on the other hand a decided purpose
to minister to the Barbarians. 2 The large number of
Jews in those regions does not explain this decision ; *
St. Paul could have found just as many large colonies
of Jews on the coast. Wendt gives the correct ex
planation when he says : " It required at a later
time special Divine intimations to induce St. Paul
to approach genuine Hellenes as a missionary. 11 The
author shows in xiii. 49 how the success of the mission
in the city extended to the whole surrounding country.
The use of the word x^/ a here * s perhaps not acci
dental. An inscription has been found in Antioch
which speaks of a eKarovrdp^f peyeowdpios* But it

1 Ramsay, " St. Paul," p. 89/., thinks otherwise.

* So we must judge if the route was as St. Luke describes.

3 This is the opinion of Blass ; Ramsay gives a noteworthy
explanation of the decision to go to Autioch in Pisidia (loc. cit.
p.92/}.

4 Raaisay, loc. eit. p. 103.

94, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

must nevertheless remain questionable whether St.
Luke here was thinking of a " regio " of which
Antioch, as a Roman colony, was the centre under
the Roman Administration. The general significance
of the word xwpa is at least equally possible here.
The account of the mission in Iconium (xiv. 16) is
quite formal in its style, and is moreover confused ;
but from the geographical point of view it is correct
that the entry into a new province should be marked
at Lystra, 1 and that in xiv. 19 the two cities of
Antioch and Iconium, in spite of their considerable
distance from one another, should be mentioned in
close combination.

St. Paul betakes himself in flight (xiv. 6) to the
cities of Lycaonia, Lystra (rightly put first), 2 and
Derbe and ei? TIJV Trepiywpov? Ramsay (loc. cit. p.
110^.) again lays great stress upon the circumstance
that the \wpa is also mentioned in this passage. I
cannot follow him here. The very expression Trepi-
Xtopos, which is also used by St. Luke in his gospel

1 It is probably true that at this time Iconium belonged, from an
administrative point of view, to Lycaonia ; but according to its
nationality and its earlier history (Xen., Anab. i. 2, 19) it belonged
to Pisidian Phrygia, and even in later times was still regarded as a
Phrygian city (Acta Justini. 3 ; Firmil. in Cypr. Ep. Ixxv. 7).

2 In xvi. 1 Derbe rightly stands first, because St. Paul is coming
from the south. It is straining at gnats to pay so much attention
to the fact that St. Luke in xiv. 6 first mentions Lystra and Derbe
together, then writes separately about Lystra and then about Derbe,
and to conclude therefore that we have here different sources.

3 The description of the route and of the trials which were
endured receives good attestation from 2 Tim. iii. 10 (so also the
account that Timothy came from Lystra): TraprjKoXovO-rjffas . . .
rots diuyfjiois, rots jraO^fJiacrii , old /J,oi tyevero v Aproxe/p, lv

Iv AtVrpou.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 95

(iii. 3; iv. 14, 37; vii. 17; viii. 37), and by St.
Mark (i. 28) before him, and by St. Matthew (iii. 3 ;
xiv. 35) along with him, of itself makes it very im
probable that he could here have had in his mind the
special meaning which the word " regio " may have
had for the country in question. If he had had this
in his mind he would not have written tj Trepixcopos,
but \wpa or another word. Lystra could be reached
from Iconium in a day, 1 Derbe from Lystra also in a
day ; yet the latter distance was greater. Both cities
were seemingly unimportant. 2 St. Paul s flight thither

1 Hence in xvi. 2 " the brethren in Lystra and Iconium " could
also be mentioned together. Timothy, who belonged to Lystra,
was also known to, and respected by, the neighbouring Church of
Iconium. The combination of these two cities is not discrepant
with the other combination (xiv. 19), where Antioch and Iconium
occur together (vide supra). In xvi. 2 we have a combination
suggested by the mere proximity of the two cities, in xiv. 19 one
probably given by the united conspiracy of the Jews of the larger
cities Antioch and Iconium against the ministry of the Apostle in
the whole neighbourhood. It is strange that Derbe is not mentioned
in xvi. 2 : it follows that the churches of Iconium and Lystra were
more closely connected than those of Derbe and Lystra, and this
is explained by their greater proximity. The accuracy of the book
at once strikes the reader as he considers the following combina
tions: (1) Lystra and Derbe are mentioned together as genuine
Lycaonian cities, in distinction from the Phrygian cities Antioch
and Iconium ; (2) Lystra and Iconium are mentioned together in
speaking of their churches, because the cities were very near to one
another, and because a notable Christian of the one church was
also known to the other ; (3) Antioch and Iconium are mentioned
together because the powerful bodies of Jews in these cities
guarded the interests of Judaism in the whole province.

1 In xiv. 6, 21, and xvi. 1 we read \varpav [in xiv. 21 rty A.], in
xiv. 8 and xvi. 2, however, and in 2 Tim. iii. 11 Ai &lt;rrpos. (The
inscriptions only afford us the nominative Lustra, which decides
nothing.) To conclude from this that we have here different
sources is unjustifiable, and involves a strange conception of the

96 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

perhaps implied a change in his original plan ; but
we can never arrive at certainty on this point.
The decisive turn had been taken in the journey
from Pisidian Antioch to Iconium i.e. towards the
south-east, i.e. towards Tarsus (and Syrian Antioch)
St. Paul simply continues in this direction. That he
did not follow this road to the end, but turned back
upon his route, is strange and does not admit of
further explanation. Did he shrink from making his
way into the wild territory of Isauria ? The people
with whom the Apostle had to do in Lystra spoke the
language of Lycaonia (xiv. 11); they did not there
fore belong to the Greek or Latin l upper classes, but
to the native and probably poorer classes. Derbe
forms the turning-point of this journey of the Apostle.
He returns by the same route (vide supra), and now
the mission in Pamphylia (Perga) is first mentioned

procedure of the writer. We must perhaps assume that it is a case
of irregular declension of a foreign proper noun, though there is
here no special attestation, yet see Kiihner-Blass, I. (1890), s.
492 /. ; Moulton, "A Grammar of New Testament Greek" (1906),
p. 48 ; Ramsay (loc. cit. p. 129) who refers to Mfya, ace. -av and
genit. -uv. The Isaurian cities with unusual names were treated as
neuter plurals (vide e.g. the subscriptions to the decree of the
Council of Nicaaa) ; at the same time it might easily happen that a
name like Lvstra, which had a Greek sound, was declined in the
accusative, seemingly like a noun of the first declension. Examples
of such mixture are by no means wanting, indeed the addition of
an irregular v has actual attestation. In ix. 32, 35 the best codices
treat Avdda as neuter plural (but C E H L P, &c. , read Av5Sav), yet
in ix. 38 A.v5da.s occurs as genitive singular. In ix. 35 we read in
some authorities TOV Sapuva, in others TOV "Lapuvav ; and in xxi. 1
ei s -r-r\v Ku) and et s rriv Kuv.

1 Ramsay (Expositor, September, 1905) remarks that the most
ancient graves in Lystra bear Latin inscriptions, while in Iconium
Greek is the rule.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 97

(xiv. 24jf.). On his second missionary journey the
Apostle travelled by land through Syria and Cilicia,
and came once again into these regions (xv. 41 ; xvi.
I,/!); but St. Luke gives us no further information
of a geographical character. 1 The TroXeiy (xvi. 4)
may, however, have also included other cities than
the four mentioned in chaps, xiii. and xiv.

Phrygia and Galatia (Mysia, Bithynia, Pontus).

Following the Acts of the Apostles, we usually speak
of three missionary journeys of St. Paul; but the author
did not so count them. He distinguishes the mission
in Cyprus, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia (chaps,
xiii. xiv.) from a second great missionary under
taking which he describes in chaps, xv. 36 xxi. 17.
Within this period there occurs a return to Antioch
(xviii. 1822), but the unity and continuity of the
whole is not affected thereby. In regard to this second
missionary undertaking St. Luke was interested only in
the mission on the coasts of the JEgean Sea. In conse
quence the mission in Phrygia and Galatia is scarcely
touched upon in his book. Nevertheless in xvi. 6, by
means of the characteristic word Siep-^ecrOai and in
xviii. 23 by this same word combined with a-rtipi. feiv
Trdvras rovs ^taO/yra?, it is clearly intimated that St.
Paul had planted the Gospel in these regions ; while

1 In xvi. 1-3 Dcrbe and Lystra are yet again mentioned only for
the purpose of telling bow it was that Timothy, who belonged to
the latter city, came into contact with St. Paul. St. Luke has thus
a special interest in this companion of St. Paul, and very naturally
so, seeing that he himself had worked together with him.

98 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

in regard to Mysia l (irapeXOovTes, xvi. 8) and Bithynia
(fTreipaCov e*V Trfv T&iQvviav TropevOtjvai, KCU owe e lacrev
O.VTOVS TO iri evfj.a Itjcrov) we are told why it was that
in spite of St. Paul s own purpose to preach in those
countries no mission was started there, 2 except in the
Mysian port Troas (XVi. 9, 11; XX. jf-). The pas
sage xvi. 69 is one of the most remarkable in the
whole book ; for at the very moment when St. Paul
makes up his mind to pass over to the genuinely
Greek world, St. Luke here tells us of plans of the
Apostle which he was not permitted to carry out.
Seeing that we cannot regard all this as mere inven
tion or supposition the passage accordingly shows
intimate knowledge, on the author s part, of circum
stances which occurred just before the we-sections
begin. If, moreover, the passage as a whole is only
intelligible in connection with the we-account, namely,
as a prelude to it, so also in its details it testifies
that the author of the we-account is identical with
the author of the whole book. What is narrated in
xvi. 69 presupposes information derived from St.
Paul himself. He purposed to journey from Galatia
westward to the coast, i.e. to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. ;
but the " Spirit " restrained him ; he then went north
eastwards towards Mysia with the object of preaching
in Bithynia, i.e. in the great cities, Nicomedia, Prusa,
&c. ; but the accomplishment of this plan also was

1 Mysia was not a Roman province. St. Luke, who elsewhere as
a rule mentions the provinces, here selects the old name in order to
give distinct expression to the geographical situation.

2 Nothing at all is said about Pontus ; it only occurs in ii. 9 ;
and we are casually told in xviii. 2, that Aquila was a Jew of
Pontus.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 99

forbidden " by the Spirit of Jesus." Finally, he was
also led through Mysia without venturing to preach
there, and at last arrived at Troas ; yet even here he
had not reached the appointed goal, but the Spirit
directed him to Macedonia. The final direction of
the Spirit embodied itself in the vision by night
of the Man of Macedonia. Nothing in the book
approaches the conviction with which at this place
the leading of the Apostle by the Spirit is pictured.
In this way St. Luke heralds, not the entry of a new
source, but the coming of St. Paul to Macedonia and
his own meeting with St. Paul. According to Ramsay
St. Luke himself was the man of Macedonia an
attractive conjecture, which had also once suggested
itself to me before I knew of Ramsay^s hypothesis
but it cannot be proved, and there is also much to be
said against it. In its favour stands the circumstance
that the appearance of the " we " at this point would
receive a good explanation, and would no longer
startle us like a sudden pistol-shot. It would well
suit the delicacy of St. Luke s literary feeling that he
should have introduced himself in this way, hinting
that St. Paul learned to know him in Troas, and
that God had used him as a means to bring the
Apostle to Macedonia. But the thread here is too
fine, and, moreover, it cannot be proved that St.
Luke was at home in Macedonia. As for the unful
filled plans of the Apostle, his sudden passage from
Galatia to Macedonia without preaching in the
countries on his way ! is so paradoxical that it can
neither have been invented nor does it admit of a
" rational " explanation. The epithet " rational "

100 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

can only be applied to the Apostle^s original purpose
to preach either in the cities on the west coast of
Asia or in those of Bithynia or Mysia. The prohi
bition, however, when given certainly had for its
positive side the thought of passing on to Macedonia,
and perhaps even of passing on to Rome, for we cannot
understand why Macedonia and Achaia should have
been preferred before Asia. The eye fixed on Rome
would explain the decision ; it therefore needed a new
and special revelation to summon the Apostle to the
mission in Macedonia and to hold him there. In any
case the unique character of the narrative in xvi. 69
prepares any one with literary perception for the
entrance of the " we " at this point. It is in form
only that the entrance is abrupt ; in reality the in
tended contrast and at the same time the close
connection with the context are as clear as possible.
Only compare :

They were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach
the Word in Asia.

They assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit
of Jesus suffered them not.

They passed by Mysia [so willed the Spirit] and

came to Troas.
[The vision in Troas : the man of Macedonia.]

Straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia,
concluding that God had called its to preach
the Gospel to them.

Under the assumption of a we-source it would be
necessary to make such a source begin as far back as
xvi. 6 ; but it is not in this style that a man writes
who is simply passing on to a new source ; rather the

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 101

eager joyous rush of the narrative at this point
implies a writer who is personally interested in what
he narrates, and now wishes to pass on to things
quorum pars magna fuit.

In Phrygia and " the Galatian region " here at
least the word %u&gt;pa is really highly significant, vide
supra St. Paul had actually preached the Gospel on
a former occasion. Seeing that according to xvi. 1,
4, 6, first Derbe and Lystra, then " the cities," then
Phrygia, then the TaXariKt] %u&gt;pa are named in order,
and that then we at last are informed that at this
point St. Paul wished to turn his steps towards Asia,
it therefore follows that he travelled from Lystra
to Icon in in and Pisidian Antioch, and that after he
had worked in south-eastern Phrygia he left Pisidian
Antioch, travelling northwards (probably north-east
wards, for a route straight northwards would have
led him into uninhabited regions). Here he worked
in a district where cities were few, among the Gala-
tians, to whom he afterwards wrote an epistle, and
from Galatia he purposed to pass by way of Sardis to
Smyrna or Ephesus ; but this was forbidden him.
When he came a second time into the Galatian \iapa
this region is mentioned before Phrygia (xviii. 23), it
follows that St. Paul on this occasion journeyed from
Cilicia straight to the north-west, and then turned
from Galatia towards Northern Phrygia. Thence
Ste\6it}v TO. avcareptKa /neptj (xix. 1) he arrived at
Ephesus, i.e. he now carried out the plan which he
was prevented from carrying out previously (chap,
xvi.). The " avcoTeptKa. fj.eptj " sell. T^? Acr/a?, situ
ated between Phrygia and the Ephesian coastland,

102 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

are the mountainous district of Lydia bordering on
north-western Phrygia (on the road which leads to
Sardis from the interior).

All that St. Luke directly or indirectly tells us
concerning the provinces, countries, and cities of
Asia Minor, and concerning the routes of St. Paul s
journeys, is unexceptionable from the geographical
standpoint. There is no flaunting of geographical
erudition, but what is necessary is always given in
correct form. The by no means insignificant culture
of the author, who keeps the map in his head, as well
as the homogeneity of his work, are herein conspicu
ously displayed.

Asia, Macedonia, Achaia.

Wherever in this book " Asia " stands together
with another province, or where it denotes Ephesus
and the neighbourhood, Asia in the narrower sense
of the word (Asia proconsul.) is intended, vide ii. 9
(Tldvrov KOI Tt]i&gt; Acr/ay, it always has the article
except in vi. 9), vi. 9 (KtXma? /rat Acn a?), xvi.
6 (with Phrygia, the FaXcm/of -^wpa, Mysia and
Bithynia), xix. 22 (with Macedonia and Achaia ;
here it moreover stands for Ephesus and the neigh
bourhood), xx. 16, 18 ; xxi. 27 ; xxiv. 28 (here also
it stands for Ephesus). The province must also be
understood in XX. 4 ( Aa-iavol e Tir^/co? KOI Tp.), and
also probably in xix. 10 (because as a result of the long
stay of the Apostle TroWe? oi KaToiKovvTes T*I\&gt; Aer/ay
were enabled to hear the Word of the Lord). Never
theless it is not always quite certain, and in xix. 26,
27 (ov /J.OVOV ^(pea-ov aXXd a"^jov Trdari]? Ttjs Aa/a?

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 103

KOI TJ ourou/Motf) it may be doubted
whether the province is meant or whether the word
has the wider significance. Seeing, however, that
the province is also to be understood in XXVii. 2
(e7ri{3dvTe$ Tr\ol(i) ^ASpa/ULVTTrjvw, /meXXovri TrAefv e/y
rot ? KaTa TTJV A&lt;riav roVou?) for the ship of Adra-
myttium (Mysia) was bound for its native shores,
i.e. for the province of Asia it follows that it is
improbable that in any part of the book Asia means
anything else than the Roman province of Asia.

The coast of Asia from Samothrace (XVi. 11) and
Troas to Patara and Myrra in Lycia (XXi. 1 and
XXVii. 5) is specially well known to the author.
Assos (XX. 13/), Adramyttium (XXVii. 2), Mitylene
in Lesbos (XX. 14), Chios (XX. 15), Samos (XX. 15),
Trogilium (XX. 15, vide infra), Ephesus (w. 11.),
Miletus (XX. 15, 17), Cos (XXi. 1), Cnidus (XXVii. 7),
and Rhodes (XXi. 1), are mentioned by name. Also
the distance of the places from one another are familiar
to him. As a result of the disastrous voyage which
he made we are specially well-informed concerning
Crete (XXVii. 7, 12, 13, 21): Salmone on the eastern
promontory (XXVii. 7), Kaloi Limenes and Lasea
(XXVii. 8) neither of these places is mentioned in
ancient authors ; they are to be found on the southern
promontory Phoenice (XXVii. 1 2, mentioned by
Ptolemy, and to be found on the western portion of
the southern coast), and the island Cauda (Gaudos,
XXVii. 16), are all noted. 1 Nothing is said anywhere
1 In xxvii. 17 the Syrtes and in xxvii. 27 the Adriatic are men
tioned. Morumsen was of opinion that in the latter passage
the author must be charged with a serious geographical blunder.
There is no justification for this charge.

104 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

in the book of a mission in Crete. The author shows
fairly detailed knowledge of Ephesus (mentioned eight

times between xviii. 19 and XX. 17 ; EKpemoi xix. 28,
34, 35 ; xxi. 29), though we cannot ascertain from
the Acts whether he himself had visited that city.
On the so-called second missionary journey St. Paul
only paid the city a passing visit, yet his ministry
found at first a favourable reception in the synagogue
there (xviii. 19, 20). The real founders of the
Ephesian Church were Priscilla and her husband
(xviii. 18 y!) together with the so-called " disciples of
John." During the third missionary journey St. Paul
at first, for three months, made the synagogue the
centre of his work (xix. 8), then for two years he
worked directly among the Gentiles of the city. We
are told that he taught daily ej/ 777 cr^oAfl Tvpavvov
(xix. 9). This sounds as if the school were known
to the first readers of the Acts. The fact that the
number of Jews in Ephesus was very large is clearly
expressed in the book, and the local colouring in the
narrative of the riot of the silversmiths is most appro
priate, although it is plain that St. Luke was not
present. His authorities here would have been Gaius
and Aristarchus of Macedonia. It is quite evident
that the narrator regards the mission in Ephesus as
at the same time a mission to the whole of Asia.
Not only did the numerous provincials visiting Ephesus
hear the AVord of God (xix. 10), but it is suggested
in passages where St. Luke writes Asia while we should
expect Ephesus (vide supra) that St. Paul made mis
sionary journeys from Ephesus. It is distinctly stated
(xix. 1) that he passed through the mountainous dis-

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 105

tricts of the province (vide supra"), and his farewell
discourse to the Ephesian elders in Miletus is reported
as if it were a farewell to the whole of Asia. Of the
cities in the interior of the province Thyatira alone
is once cursorily mentioned (XVi. 14).

The province of Macedonia, whose churches stood
in the closest personal relationship to the Apostle, is
often mentioned in chaps, xvi xx. (see also XXVii. 2).
In xix. 21 Macedonia and Achaia stand together as in
Rom. xv. 26 and 1 Thess. i. 7, 8. Philippi is the
first Macedonian city and at the same time the first
European city to which St. Paul brought the Gospel.
It is also the only Christian community the history
of whose foundation is related in the we-sections. It
is therefore the more important that the planting of
the Church in this city proceeds mutatis mutandis in
the same way as that of the other churches (St. Paul
begins with the Jews). The details of the narrative
are, however, as might be expected, specially vivid
and trustworthy (the role which St. Luke assigns to
himself [he does not belong, as do Timothy and
Erastus, to the SICIKOI ouvre? r&lt;5 TLavXca xix. 22], the
o&gt; T/? TTV^W irapa TroTa/mov, Lydia the
ts 7roXeco9 Svarco&gt;V) the reception into
her house, the girl with the daemon, the a-rpar^yoi).
Yet such traits are found only in the first half of the
account, the second half (the imprisonment and the
release of St. Paul) leaves much to be desired ; but just
here the " we M is wanting. St. Luke had therefore
again left the Apostle ; probably he had returned to
Asia. If he were at that time at home in Philippi, per
haps temporarily, as Ramsay supposes an hypothesis

106 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

which is favoured by the fact that in XX. 6 he joins the
Apostle a second time at Philippi he must at this
time have left the town for unknown reasons ; for he
was not involved in the fate which overtook St. Paul
and Silas in Philippi. It is unsafe to conclude that
the remarkable description of Philippi (?;rt? co-rlv
TrpdoTrj r&gt;79 /mepiSos Ma/ce5owaf Tro Xt? /coXaWa XVi. 12)
is due to special local patriotism on the part of
St. Luke. The import of this note, the interpreta
tion of which is moreover not clear, 1 is fairly obvious
if one considers that Philippi was by no means a very
important city and that its Jewish population was
only small. To explain why St. Paul came first to
this place (passing by Samothrace and Neapolis XVi.
11), all is said that could be said in favour of its
importance. At the same time it still remains un
explained why St. Paul passed so hurriedly from
Galatia (!) straight to Philippi ; and it still remains
an attractive hypothesis that it was St. Luke, who,
having relations of some kind with Philippi, influ
enced the Apostle to go to that city.

In reference to Thessalonica (xvii. 1, 11, 1-3), the
native city of Aristarchus and Secundus (xx. 4 ;
XXVii. 2), which St. Paul reached by the great road

1 It contains an error if it was intended to signify that Philippi
was the capital of that district (M^/HS) of Macedonia ; for Araphi-
polis was the capital. Perhaps the words may be translated " the
most considerable city that was a colony in the particular district
of Macedonia." Blass s conjecture, trpwrr]s for Trpwrt] TTJS, is in
genious and elegant, yet scarcely right, seeing that TrpJh-os in the
sense of "prominent" is usual with St. Luke (vide St. Luke xix.
47 ; Acts xiii. 50 ; xvii. 4 ; xxv. 2 ; xxviii. 7, 17) ; and on the other
hand, one does not expect so detailed a statement as " in the first
district."

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 107

passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia (xvii. I), 1
we only learn that there was a synagogue there (loc. cit. ;
if t] (rvvaywyn is to be read we must assume that it
was the only synagogue in the district), that St. Paul
was entertained there by one Jason, that he preached
on three Sabbath days in the synagogue, and that the
magistrates of the city were called " Politarchs." As
for the rest of Macedonia mention is made of the
mission in Bercea (xvii. 10, 13), where the Jews were
more friendly disposed. From Beroea came Sopater
the son of Pyrrhus (xx. 4), the companion of St. Paul.
The addition of the name of the father unusual in
the Acts would show that the man was of good
birth. The name " Pyrrhus" is, besides, characteristic
of the country.

Achaia is first mentioned where Gallic residing in
Corinth is described as avOvwaros rtjs A^a /ia? (xviii.
12). Elsewhere it is found again only twice : xviii.
27 (Apollos wishes to go from Ephesus into Achaia,
i.e. to Corinth to work as an evangelist, but not ex
clusively in that city) and xix. 21 (St. Paul determines
to pass through Macedonia and Achaia). In xx. 2
instead of Achaia we find " Hellas " (here only in
the New Testament). The provincial council of the
Acha-ans calls itself in an inscription of the time of
Caligula (vide Guirand, Les Assemblies Provinc. dans
Tempire romaine, Paris, 1887, p. 116) IlayeAAf/j/ey,
Tray-re? 01 "EAAj/i e?, owoobj TU)V KAAj/vcoi/. This varia-

wravT6s, rrjv Aji&lt;f&gt;iiro\ii&gt; /cat TTJV Airo\\uviav jjX^ov ei j 0e&lt;nra-
Not only the article before the first two cities, but likewise
the verb Siod(vtii&gt; [only here in the Acts, but see St. Luke viii. 1]
proves that St. Luke is thinking of the well-known road (vufe supra).

108 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

tion between Achaia and Hellas is characteristic of
the Hellenic author.

The description of the visit to Athens (xvii. 15,
16, 21, 22 ; xviii. 1) is not only of special nobility
and beauty, but also, so far as we are able to judge,
both appropriate and unexceptionable. The syna
gogue in that city, the Agora, the Areopagus, 1 the
Epicureans and Stoics are mentioned. The character
isation of these people and the gentle sarcasm of his
words concerning the Athenians (xvii. 21 : AOyvaioi
iron/res KOI oi evrt^y/xowre? ^evoi he knows also of
these people ei? ovev eTepov tjVKcdpovv 77 Aeye/v TI rj
axoveiv TI Katvorepov), the poetical quotation, and
every detail, betray the cultured writer who paints
his portraits on a background of the very best
tradition. The use that is made of " the Unknown
God," which need not necessarily be changed into
" the unknown gods," is a masterpiece of art, and I
do not see why we must ascribe this masterpiece to
St. Luke and not to St. Paul himself. The dis
course, spoken in such a place, may well have dwelt
in the memory of those who heard it, and the author
with perfect integrity has recorded the slight results
of St. Paul s teaching.

During the so-called second missionary journey
St. Paul worked for eighteen months in Corinth
(xviii. 1, 8 ; xix. 1). However, as usual, only
the beginning and close of the ministry is pic
tured in the book. St. Paul abode first with
Aquila and Priscilla (xviii. 3), then with one
Titius Justus in the neighbourhood of the syna-

1 Here Curtius explanation seems to me untenable.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 109

gogue. 1 The port of Cenchreae is mentioned in xviii.
18. On the third journey the Apostle once again
spent three months in " Hellas," i.e. in Corinth and
the province (xx. 2 /.).

1 Interest in the houses in which St. Paul (or St. Peter) had
stayed sometimes with detailed descriptions may be traced
through the whole of the book. Here again we have a trait which
shows the close connection between the we-sections and the other
parts of the book.

St. Paul stays in Damascus tv oUiq. lovSa in the street that

is called "straight" (ix. 11).
St. Peter stays in Joppa vapd Tin Zt/iwvi /3i//xre?, if iartv oMa

ira/&gt;d 6d\aa-&lt;rav (ix. 43 ; X 6).
St. Paul stays (/^mc) in Philippi with the purple-seller

Lydia (xvi. 13 /.).

He stays in Thessalonica tv rfi olidq. Ida-ovot (xvii. 5).
He stays (fj^veiv) in Corinth first with Priscilla and Aquila

(xviii. 3).
He next stays in Corinth lv oUty -rivfa 6v6^ari Ttrt ou lovcrrov,

oO i) oiKiif. ?jt&gt; ffvvofjLopovffa TTJ (rvvayuyrj (xviii. 7).
He stays (ntvtLv) in Caesarea with the evangelist Philip rovrtf
5 tya.v Ovyartpfs rfoffapts irapdtvoi irpo(pr)TVov(rai (xxi. 9).
He stays in Jerusalem with one Mvao-wv KWT/MOS, Apxaios

HaOrrrrjS (xxi. 16).

He stays (ftlvtiv) in Eome itad eavrbv avv rip &lt;f&gt;v\d&lt;rir&lt;H&gt;Ti avrbv

ffrpanwTTj (xxviii. 16), or again, he stays (^u^mv)

there iv Kiy ni&lt;r0w/j.a.Ti . . . &K&lt;I)\VTVS (xxviii. 31).

Cf. also the virepyov, ov Jjyaiv Ka.Ta/j.tvovrfs in Jerusalem (i. 13) ; the

vtrfpfov in Lydda (ix. 37, 39) ; the house of Mary the mother of

St. Mark in Jerusalem (xii. 12) ; the house of the jailor in Philippi

(xvi. 34) ; the inrtpfov in Troas, ou rjftev &lt;rvvijy/j.^yoi (xx. 8) ; the

&lt;TXO\TJ Ti pdwov in Ephesus (xix. 9). How do the supporters of the

we-souroe hypothesis stand in the face of a situation like this ? Of

these passages six stand in the we-sections, nine in the remaining

parts of the book. It must be assumed, I suppose, that the author

of the whole book was interested in " houses," and had the fortune

to meet with the account of an eye-witness who was likewise

interested in " houses " ! I

110 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Italy.

Italy and Rome lie on the horizon of the author of
the Acts, and are terms which mark the limits of the
scope of his work. St. Luke says in xviii. 2 of Aquila
and his wife Priscilla that they had TT poo- (paras come
from Italy, meaning thereby, as is shown by the con
clusion of the verse, Rome. Likewise we read in the
we-sections (XXVii. 2) : " when it was determined that
we should take ship for Italy " while Rome is in
tended. Also in a third passage (XXVii. 6) Italy
perhaps stands for Rome ; for it is here most natural
to think of an Alexandrian corn-ship bound for
Rome.

" Romans " are already mentioned in the list of
nations (ii. 10) ; but as the goal of the journeys of
St. Paul Rome appears first in xix. 21 (in Ephesus
during the third journey). Then in xxiii. 11 we find
the most significant words of Christ to the Apostle :
to? Sie/maprvpo) TO. Trepi e/xou eis Iepov&lt;Ta\t )/uL, OVTCO are
Set KOI eis Pw/u.rji [tapTvptjaai (Jerusalem and Rome !).
These words are again taken up in XXVii. 24 (here
the emperor stands in the place of Rome), and the
arrival in Rome is at last recorded in XXViii. 14, 16. 1
We, however, learn but little of the Christians and
the Jews in Rome. Of places belonging to Italy,
Malta (XXViii. I,/.), Syracuse (XXViii. 12), Rhegium
(XXViii. 13), Puteoli (XXViii. 13), Appii Forum and

1 Pw/tcuos has the moaning " Roman citizen " in xvi. 21, 27, 38 ;
xxii. 25-27, 29 ; xxiii. 27. In xxv. 16 it occurs in a wider sense :
OVK tariv tdos Pw(ji.aiots, and here the Roman sense of justice is
commended.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 111

the Tres Tabernae (XXViii. 15) are mentioned. The
author presupposes in his readers a knowledge of the
two last places, though they were not important.

Nor is the Acts wanting in references to Egypt and
Cyrene. These are already mentioned in the list of
nations (ii. 10) with the precise description : AtyvirTos
KCU TO. fj.ept] r7? AfpVi;? TJy? Kara KiMMJMfir. Egypt
occurs elsewhere only in quotations from the Old
Testament, and in xxi. 88 an Egyptian is mentioned
who had stirred up a revolt, as is also told us by
Josephus. In vi. 9 we hear of Alexandrian Jews
who had settled in Jerusalem, and in xviii. 24 of an
Alexandrian Jew, Apollos, who comes to Ephesus. As
this man had already learned to know the Gospel
even though imperfectly in his own country, it
follows that the Acts contains an indirect notice of the
beginnings of the mission in Alexandria. 1 Concern
ing the Jews of Cyrene in Jerusalem (vi. 9), St. Luke
has not forgotten that some of these, in conjunction
with Jews of Cyprus, were the first missionaries to
the Gentiles (xi. 20), and he notes among the pro
phets and teachers of the Church in Antioch Lucius
of Cyrene (xiii. 1). By an accident a reference even
to Ethiopia is not wanting in this book (viii. 27) :

* &lt; A W I ~ T^- &gt; r\ -^ i

idov avrjp Attftoy ei/voir^o? ovvacrTtjs Jtxayda/o;? pacr/Atcr-
crq? AlOioTrcov. Thus the glance of the author surveys
the greater part of the known world (xi. 28 ; xvii. 6,
31 ; xix. 27 ; xxiv. 5) from the Parthians and Medes
to Rome, and from the Ethiopians to Bithynia. In
no instance does he lay himself open to an attack
upon his accuracy, and in no place docs his descrip-

i Alexandrian ships in xxvii. 6 and xxviii. 11.

112 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

tion fall into heterogeneous fragments. The geogra
phical and chronological references and notices in
the book show the circumspection, the care, the
consistency, and the trustworthiness of the writer ;
and the parts where the we " does not occur are also
in this particular so firmly and closely riveted to the
we-sections that the latter cannot be distinguished as
a source from the rest of the book. The author of
the we-sections is also the author of the complete
work.

Appendix : Special Reading s of the so-called
^3-reeension.

Also in the passages of the book with which we are
at present concerned the so-called /3-recension offers a
series of special readings. 1 I here neglect the varia
tion between lepova-aXyj/ut. and lepocroXvjuia.

1. viii. 1. IlAr/y ru&gt;v aTroaroXcav has the seemingly

superfluous addition : o* epeivav ev Iepova-aXiJiu.
(DLK).

2. viii. 4. In addition to the notice that those

dispersed by the persecution preached the
Word, we have also the seemingly superfluous
addition : /caret ra? Tro Aet? KOI /cco/xa? (civitates
et castcllaj louSaias (L). In the genuine text
of the book /cay/*/ is once found (viii. 25, vide
supra).

3. viii. 5. In place of ei? ryv iroXiv rt]9 Za/xctjO/ct?

a Latin authority gives the explanatory read
ing : ei? ^/a/mapeiav Trjv TTO\IV.

1 D denotes that the reading occurs only in Codex Bezte, L stands
for Latin, S for Syrian, and K for Coptic authorities.

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 113

4. ix. 32. Instead of the indefinite Sia TTOLVTWV two

Latin authorities read : Sia Traeruiv TWV TroXewv
KOI -viwpwv (vcooot, vide supra}.

5. xi. 2. Before ore &lt;^e afe/3// IleTyOO? etV lepovtra-

Xr jfji DLS add : o yixei/ ovv Tlerpo? Sta l/cavou
tjOeXijtrev TropevOfjvai eV lepoa-oXv/ua KOI
Toi/9 a$eX&lt;f)ov&lt;} [sell, in Caesarea]
ctf rai/TOf?] efyXuev, iroXvv Te
&lt; CTropeveTO &gt; om TU&gt;V \(apu&gt;v
ai/rou?. Concerning the secondary
character of this interpolation see Weiss,
Texte u. Unters., Bd. 17, H. 1, s. 70 / Here
also %u&gt;pa is again used by the interpolator.

6. xii. 1. DSL here add : &lt;V&gt;/9^ eV r/; lovfiaia in

order to connect the verse with xi. 30.

7. xii. 10. Here, in the description of the exit of

St. Peter and the angel from the prison, D has
the famous addition : Kcnef3)]&lt;Ta.v roi/9 CTTTU
/3a$/xoi&gt;9 /cat, which may be original ; yet this
is not certain when we consider the tendency
to embellishment in the /3-recension.

8. xii. 25. Here a Latin authority inserts etV

A.vrioyeiav in order to connect this verse
with the following verse.

9. xiv. 6. D and the Codex Laudianus reinforce

Tt]v Trepi^wpov by adding oXijv. Such re
inforcing additions are frequent in D.
10. xiv. 25. DS insert evayyeXifou.ei oi avrov?,

i I o

because they missed an express statement
that a church had been founded also in
Attalia. The interpolator probably knew of
a church there.

114 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

11. xvi. 1. DSL interpolate Sie\6tov [

TO. eQvt] TO.VTO. because they had already
made an interpolation in a previous verse
(xv. 41). The secondary character here is
shown by the constant repetition of SiepyecrQai
which already stands in xv. 41, stands again
in xvi. 4 (D), then again in xvi. 6, and lastly
also in xvi. 8 (D). This is not like St. Luke.
The genuine text has the word only in xv. 41
and xvi. 6 (thus twice instead of five times).
The use of TO. eOvtj here is also unusual.

12. xvi. 6. One Latin authority reads in place

of TaXartK^v %(t)pav the plural " Galatise
regiones"; this is unimportant. Yet Blass
against all other authorities has received this
reading into the text.

13. xvi. 8. Instead of the difficult but un

doubtedly correct TrapeXOovre?, which has
here a metaphorical significance, DL read
Sie\66vTe$ (rrfv Mvo-mv).

14. xvii. 1. The insertion in D of Kar^\0ov V

before "* A.Tro\\u&gt;viav (which must now lose its
article) and of xaitelQev before et? Oea-a-aXoi iKtjv
is probably intended to indicate that the
Apostles also preached in Apollonia (vide
supra on xiv. 25).

15. xvii. 15. Here is found in D the great inter

polation: TraptjXOev $e rt]v Qea-craXiav CKwXvOr]
yap et? avrovs Ktjpv^ai rov \6yov. The inter
polator took offence at the circumstance that
Thessalia was passed by, and endeavoured to
explain it (after xvi. 7).

LANDS, NATIONS, CITIES, AND HOUSES 115

16. xviii. 25. Here D, in an explanatory inter

polation (though it does not give any new
information), reports that Apollos was in
structed in Christianity ev rji irarpiSi (i.e. in
Alexandria). 1

17. xix. 28. The interpolation ipaporrw e&lt;Y TO

a/j-cfioSov (DS also Mediolan.) naturally does
not presuppose a special knowledge of the
locality, but is intended only to inform us that
the scene was now transferred to the street.

18. XX. 15. After irapefiuXonev a? 2a/uoi/ D

(also the codices HLP and very many cursives)
SL read KCU /u.eivai&gt;re$ ei&gt; TpwyiXta ^Tpaiyv-
\\i(i)~\. This seems to be the original read
ing ; its omission also is intelligible ; yet on
this point absolute certainty cannot be at
tained vide infra on xxi. 1 and 16.

19. XXi. 1. Here DLK insert KOI Mvpa after

Ildrapa ; probably an interpolation after
xxvii. 5/.

20. XXi. IGyi DS read here: ovroi $e rjyov ////a?

TT/OO? o5? evi(r6w/Jiev KOI Trapayeio/uLCKx f/y Ttva
KWfJLrjv eyevo/uLfOa irapa MroffWM Ki&gt;7rp/a&gt;,
fjLa9t]T{] ayo^a/a), KaicelOev eftoKTtJ "jXOofjLev e/V
Iepocr6\ufJ.a. The host is thus represented
as dwelling in a village between Caesarea and
Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem itself. This text
appears at first sight very attractive; on closer

1 I do not discuss the interpolations made by D and its satellites
in xviii. 21, 27 /. ; xix. 1, as they do not serve our present purpose
with the exception of the reading " rcus tKK\rjfflcus" ( Ax&tas) for
TO?I vtiri&lt;rrei K6ffi.t . Here we are informed that there were several
churches in Achaia.

116 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

inspection, however, its meaning is not clear ;
moreover, we can see how it has arisen out of the
genuine text (vide Weiss, loc. cit., s. 101 /.).
It is also somewhat incredible that St. Luke
should have taken such interest in noting the
person with whom St Paul with his large
following of Gentile Christians found hos
pitality for one night on the way between
Csesarea and Jerusalem, while it would be not
unimportant to mention the man who was
courageous enough to offer shelter to St. Paul
and his company during their stay in Jerusalem.
2 1 . xxvii. 5. A Latin authority may perhaps
have read SicnrXeva-avres TOV KiXiKiov KO\TTOV
KOI TO TLa.fj.&lt;pv\ioi&gt; TreAccyo? instead of TO
TO Kara. Ttjv KtA//aav /ecu Il

22. XXViii. 16. LS and Cod. Mediolan. read the
words e&o T&gt;/9 7rape/jL/3o\&gt;js after fj.eveiv Kaff
eavrov (explanatory).

Many of these readings are not uninteresting ; but
only those in xii. 10 and XX. 15 have a certain claim
to originality. No certain conclusion can be drawn as
to the birthplace of these interpolations. The inter
polations in xiv. 25 (Attalia), and in xvii. 1 (Apollonia),
the insertion of Myra in xxi. 1 and of the village
between Caesarea and Jerusalem in xxi. 16,/!, give us
no information on this point. The interpolation of
Thessalia in xvii. 15 is more important. It is natural
to suppose that the interpolator had some interest in
apologising for St. Paul s neglect of this province.

CHAPTER III

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS

ST. LUKE, in his Acts of the Apostles, treats only two
persons, St. Peter and St. Paul, as chief characters.
The former is introduced in i. 15 as already known
(from the gospel) and as the leader of the Apostles ;
but the author gives no further direct information as
to his character and antecedents. His character is
left to come out in his speeches and actions. St.
Luke, in xii. 17, lets him drop out of the history of
the Acts, though he afterwards mentions the part
he played in the most critical scene of the book (xv.
7-11, 14). St. Paul is first introduced (vii. 58) as an
unknown young man named Saul. Here again, as
with St. Peter, no definite summary of St. Paul s
character and antecedents is given, and the Apostle is
left to describe himself in his own words and actions. 1
Emphasis is alone laid upon the fact that he, like
St. Peter, spoke moved by the Holy Spirit, and a
few details of his early history are referred to here
and there (Tarsus, Roman citizenship, study under
Gamaliel, &c.). From chap. xv. to the end of the

1 The only exception is the passage in the letter of the Church
of Jerusalem to Antioch, xv. 26, where we read of him and St.
Barnabas that they were Avdpuiroi ira.p3.5c5uK&Tft T&J ^t x&lt;ij avruv
vvip rov 6v6fjLa.Tos rov Kvpiov r]/j,wv I. Xp. This, however, can scarcely
be called an exception.

117

118 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

book he remains the hero, so that it is quite obvious
that the two chief personalities of the book, as it
were, relieve one another. In chap, xv., however, we
find them together. There is this difference in the
treatment of the two characters that St. Paul, in the
great discourse of chap. xx. at Miletus, is made to
look back upon his career and to give a searching
description of his character and his work in the
style of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Cor
inthians ; this is never the case with St. Peter. On
the whole the book makes St. Paul stand out in ever
so much clearer light than St. Peter at the conclu
sion the reader possesses quite a distinct portrait of
the former apostle, 1 while St. Peter as a personality is
of a shadowy, indeed a somewhat conventional type. 2
Some have asserted, and with a certain plausibility
have attempted to demonstrate, that St. Luke pur
posed a detailed parallelism in the history of the two
apostles. This, however, does not admit of proof. 3

1 This is especially so because the three great speeches (in Pisi-
dian Antioch, Athens, and Miletus) describe his active ministry
according to its three principal phases as missionary to the Jews,
as missionary to the Gentiles, and as a leader of the Church.

2 And yet the speeches contain some quite individual and char
acteristic traits (in reference to St. Peter s doctrine) which ought
not to be overlooked.

3 From the point of view of the space dedicated to St. Paul and
of the whole structure of the book itself, one cannot definitely prove
that St. Paul was not intended to be the sole hero of the Acts. We
must, however, remember, that not only are several very important,
indeed fundamentally important, discourses put into the mouth of
St. Peter, but that the story of Cornelius, in which he plays the
prominent part, also occupies a central position in the book, and
that with this story chap. xv. is most closely connected (vide xv.
7, 14).

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 119

Some instances of parallelism presented themselves quite
unsought for ; nothing more than this can be said.
The name of apostle is applied to St. Paul only twice
in the book (xiv. 4, 14). 1 Weiss thinks that just on
this account the word in both cases must have its
more general and non-technical significance. But
this cannot be proved, for the circumstance that in
many passages the Twelve are called simply " the
Apostles " (as if there were no others) is not a safe
proof. In the book they are also called " the Eleven "
or " the Twelve," and what could have induced St. Luke
purposely to refuse to give St. Paul a name which he
himself claimed with such complete conviction ? 2

Among persons of the second rank might be num
bered the Apostles (the Twelve), who, although they
were the witnesses of the Resurrection and formed a
most important body indeed at the beginning the
leading and governing body in the Primitive Com
munity, are yet kept in the background. But if we
would exclude these, then only jive personages of
secondary rank come under St. Luke^s consideration,
namely, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, James, and Apollos.
Concerning the character and antecedents of four of these
the Acts gives some direct and detailed information

1 In the same passages it is also given to St. Barnabas.

2 The following conjecture is at least possibly true : For St.
Luke, and for the authority upon whom he depends for his know
ledge of the relations of Jerusalem and Antioch, St. Paul was as
much an apostle as the others (note that chaps, vi. and xiii., xiv.
belong to a single body of tradition and that in chap. vi. the Apostles
are called "the Twelve," while in chap. xiv. St. Paul and St.
Barnabas are called apostles) ; but the source from which St. Luke
borrowed his material for the description of the Church of Jeru
salem avoided calling St. Paul an apostle.

120 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(Stephen, vi. 5, 8, 10 ; vii. 55 ; xxii. 20 ; Philip,
viii. 6f. ; Barnabas, iv. 36 f. ; xi. 24 ; xv. 26 ; Apollos,
xviii. 24^".). It is not insignificant that these four
are all Hellenists. The greatest emphasis is laid
upon the characterisation of St. Stephen, and what is
still more important a long speech of his is recorded.
Owing to this he approaches very nearly to St. Peter
and St. Paul in the importance given to him in the
economy of the book. We might describe him by
the numeral l b , so important is he to the author, so
great is his admiration for him. St. Barnabas conies
next in importance, but no speeches of his own are
recorded, though he speaks together with St. Paul
(xiv. 14y; 22 b ; xv. 3,12). Likewise no reports are
given of discourses of St. Philip, yet cursory reference
is made in viii. 35 to a missionary sermon of his on a
passage in Isaiah, and the renown of his miracles is
celebrated in the strongest terms. These three per
sons of secondary rank have a very high, and indeed
the same, significance in the plan of the work. They
are to St. Luke of the highest importance for his
representation of the passage of the Gospel from the
Jews to Gentiles. There is no need to go more into
detail on this point. In the second part of the book,
however, there is no personage of secondary rank
within the general plan of the book It is the more
remarkable that outside the general plan there is one
person, Apollos, who strongly excited the interest of
St. Luke. The manner in which this personage is
treated, i.e. characterised, in the book, makes him
appear on a level with Stephen, Philip, and Barnabas.
How came St. Luke to treat him with such distinc-

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 121

tion ? The key to the answer seems to me to lie in
xviii. 28. Here St. Luke emphatically states with
what energy and success Apollos demonstrated the
Messiahship of Jesus publicly before the Jews in Corinth
(nothing is said of his preaching to Gentiles). 1 In
this statement the account concerning Apollos culmi
nates. Though the main subject of the book is the
demonstration of the passage of the Gospel from the
Jews to the Greeks, still the conquest of the Jews by
this gifted apologist was so important to St. Luke
that he has included the ministry of Apollos as an
episode in his work. Thus the second half of the
Acts acquired as a companion figure to St. Paul
a personage of secondary rank, who in his teach
ing formed to a certain extent a parallel to St.
Stephen. Seeing that St. Luke was personally ac
quainted with Silas and Timothy, and yet does not
in his work give them special prominence as mission
aries, it follows that Apollos must have appeared to
him a much more important personality than either
of them. 2 This deduction, moreover, agrees excellently
with what we learn about Apollos from the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. Here also he stands in
the foreground beside St. Paul and St. Peter. Ac
cordingly St. Luke s procedure in introducing Apollos

1 Not only evrovus but also 17/40719 are strongly emphasised in
the verse. This emphasis makes it improbable that St. Luke had
in his eye only the discourses of Apollos in synagogues ; he must
have intended a ministry of wider publicity, wider than that of
St. Paul to the Jews.

2 May we not go a step further and conjecture that St. Luke
counted Apollos a more successful converter of Jews than St. Paul
himself, and therefore felt bound to mention him in his work.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

to the scene of the Acts is brilliantly justified by St.
Paul. St. James, the fifth personality of this series,
occupies a peculiar position. It is presupposed that
the four others are unknown, while it is assumed that
he is known. The readers evidently knew though
this is nowhere stated that he was the Lord s brother,
and that he had become the head of the Primi
tive Community after the Twelve had quite given
up the leadership, which had already been limited
by the appointment of the " Seven." We receive no
direct information concerning him, indeed in two of
the three passages where his name occurs extraordi
narily little is said about him (xii. 17; xxi. 18^".).
In the second passage we at once lose sight of him as
an individual amid the body of presbyters at Jeru
salem, and in the first passage one can only just
recognise that he is the head of " the brethren " in
Jerusalem. 1 But in the third passage (xv. 13 y.), for
which xii. 17 is evidently intended to prepare, he
plays a part of the highest, indeed of decisive,
importance in the general plan of the book. As to
St. Stephen, so also to him a speech is assigned, and
it was this speech that settled the whole question
under discussion.

We can, moreover, distinguish in the book person
ages of a third degree of importance, individuals
whom St. Luke thought it worth while or necessary
just to mention, without going into closer detail con
cerning them, either because they were of no import-

i This method of treatment of St. James in xii. 27 and xxi. \Qff.
is of importance in connection with the question of the homogeneity
of the book. Chap. xxi. 18 belongs to the we-sections.

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 123

ance at all for the plan of his work, or because their
importance seemed to him to be exhausted with the
mere mention of their names, or because he had no
further information about them. Among these we
include the Apostles in so far as in i. 13 a list of their
names is given ; further, in the first part of the Acts,
the Apostle John, the Apostle James described in xii.
as the brother of John, this can only be because it is
presupposed that the latter was known to the readers
Joseph, Barsabbas, and Matthias (i. 23, 26), the
Mother of our Lord (i. 14) and His brethren (Joe. cit.) ;
lastly, the Seven (vi. 5). Again in the second part of
the book we also have as subordinate characters St.
Mark (xiii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37 f.) already mentioned
in the first part (xii. 12, 1 25), and thus forming a
bond between the two parts the prophets and
teachers of Antioch (xiii. I/.), Silas (xv. 22, 27, 32,
40, and in chaps, xvi. xix.), Judas Barsabbas (xv. 22,
27, 32), Timotheus (chaps, xvi.-xix.), Aquila and
Priscilla (xviii. 1 ff.}&gt; Erastus (xix. 22), Gaius and
Aristarchus (xix. 29 ; xx. 4 ; Aristarchus also in
xxvii. 2), and the companions of St. Paul mentioned
in xx. 4. Of these persons, who are only cursorily
sketched or not sketched at all, St. Mark is the only
one of whom we learn anything discreditable. We
cannot see why St. Luke should have mentioned him
at all if he only meant to tell his readers that when St.
Mark had been chosen to accompany the two Apostles
as their minister he had left them of his own accord,
and that this behaviour of his was the cause of a

1 In this passage he is, as it were, announced beforehand, just as
it is with St. James in xii. 17.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

quarrel between St. Paul and St. Barnabas, leading to
their separation. As one recollects that St. Mark s
gospel formed the chief authority for St. Luke in
his gospel, all kinds of ideas concerning St. Luke s
relations with him suggest themselves. The reader
is evidently intended to notice that Timothy takes
St. Mark s place with St. Paul (compare xv. 37-39
with xvi. 1 ^.), likewise that Silas takes the place of
St. Barnabas (xv. 40). That Silas stood on a diffe
rent footing with St. Paul from Timothy follows from
xvi. 19^".; xvii. 4, 10; on the other hand, even
according to the Acts, Timothy was not merely an
attendant. Silas vanishes after xviii. 5 ; his place is
supplied by Aquila and his wife Priscilla.

The lists of names of the Apostles, of the Seven,
and of the prophets and teachers in Antioch, are all
given from the same motive. The readers must know
the names of the ancient leaders of the two to St.
Luke most important churches, and this applies
more particularly in the case of the Apostles. Of
these, if we except St. Peter, the author shows special
interest only in St. John. Seeing that he has simply
inserted the name of St. John into the Petrine narra
tives after they had taken their final shape, it follows
that he wished to give prominence to this apostle.
We see his reason from xii. 2 (vide supra) the
readers knew this John, or at least knew of him. 1

The brevity of the reference to the Herodian

1 Why he is not mentioned in chap. xv. we cannot tell. St. Luke
has not purposely left him out. The simplest supposition is that
the tradition upon which he depends did not here make mention of
St. John.

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 125

persecution is most strange. An apostle, St. James,
suffered martyrdom, other Christians of Jerusalem
became confessors, and yet the author, who describes
the history of Stephen in such detail and with such
enthusiasm, does not devote to this event a few sen
tences of recognition ; indeed he tells us no details at
all ! This paradoxical fact can, in my opinion, only
be explained on the supposition that the author here
closely followed his source, and that he possessed no
other information concerning the Herodian persecu
tion (while Clement of Alexandria, over a century
later, knew more). The source, however, did not con
tain a history of the Apostolic epoch, but only stones
about St. Peter, and therefore mentioned this persecu
tion only by way of an introduction. This circum
stance is of high significance in view of the question
concerning the nature of the source (written or oral).
Besides these three classes of actors, who are
arranged in an order which displays an admirable
sense of proportion and relative importance, there
appear in the book about seventy other persons who
are for the most part mentioned by name. 1 They
are all of them introduced in subordination to those
who have been already described as the actors, and it
would serve no useful purpose to go through the list
and to discuss them one by one. A few points are,
however, worthy of notice. In the first place, it is
strange that some persons who play an important
part in the plot of the narrative are not mentioned
by name. Why is the lame man of iii. 2 ff. not

1 We exclude references to characters of the Old Testament, to
Pilate, &c.

126 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

named, nor the lame man at Lystra (xiv. 8 ff.) ? l
Why do we miss the names of the founders of the
church in Antioch (xi. 20 /.) ? why also the names
of the confessors under Herod (xii. 1) ? Why is it
that no names are given to the Jewish Christians,
hostile to St. Paul, who came down to Antioch (xv.
1) ? nor to the companions of St. Paul and St. Bar
nabas (xv. 2) ? nor to the Christian Pharisees in
Jerusalem (xv. 5) ? nor to the numerous teachers in
Antioch who laboured together with St. Paul and St.
Barnabas (xv. 35) ? Why is it that we do not know
the name of the damsel who was possessed by an evil
spirit in Philippi (xvi. 6 f.) ? nor the names of the
praetors of that city (xvi. 20 ff.) ? nor the name of
the jailor (xvi. 23 ff.) ? nor the names of the so-called
" disciples of John " in Ephesus (xix. 1 ^".), nor of the
Asiarchs and the Grammateus (xix. 31, 35) in the
same city ? nor the name of St. Paul s sister s son in
Jerusalem (xxiii. 16) ? The answer that St. Luke
has not given their names because of their compara
tive insignificance will suffice for the majority of the
instances ; 2 but in some cases as for instance the
lame men in Jerusalem and Lystra, and the martyrs
under Herod we must suppose that he did not know

1 Compare on the contrary the less important case of ./Eneas
(ix. 33).

2 This holds good also of the Strategi in Philippi and the Asiarchs
in Ephesus. The author indeed mentions by name, when he can,
persons in authority among the Jews and Gentiles who appear in
his history (thus even Claudius Lysias, the centurion Julius, and
Publius in Malta ; Gamaliel is even characterised in v. 34 as T//UOJ
irdvTi TO? Aay ; the proconsul Sergius Paulus is called atn^p crweros
[xiii. 7]), but the Strategi and Asiarchs did not come under con
sideration as individuals.

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 127

the names, otherwise he would certainly have given
them. 1 On the other hand it is also strange that
there are some very insignificant persons whom he
has honoured by mentioning their names, in the first
place a whole list of persons with whom St. Paul (or
St. Peter) dwelt or lodged (vide supra p. 109) this
belongs to his scheme of narrative then some other
individuals, namely Blastus the chamberlain (xii. 20),
Dionysius and Damaris at Athens (xvii. 34), Crispus
at Corinth (xviii. 8), and Alexander at Ephesus (xix.
33). These are after all only a few instances. Except
for the cases of " Blastus " and " Alexander," which
stand quite by themselves here the author has paid
too much deference to his sources we may well sup
pose that the persons in question, Dionysius, Damaris,
and Crispus, played an important part in later days
(for Crispus, see 1 Cor. i. 14 ; for Dionysius, see the
notice concerning Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. Hist.
Eccl. iv. 23), indeed that they were probably known
to the first readers. They are thus named for the
same reason that the Apostle John is named side by
side with St. Peter, and that in xxi. 9 the informa
tion is given that St. Philip had four daughters who
were prophetesses (concerning the importance of these
daughters, see Papias and numerous other authorities,
also Clem. Alex.).

The treatment of personalities is the same in
character throughout the whole book. By this means
also the book acquires an aspect of strict uniformity.
Even the abrupt introduction of the " we " is paralleled

1 This supposition is also probable in the case of the Grammateus
at Ephesus.

128 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

by similar instances of abruptness in the introduction
of persons as if they were already known ; and the
speaking in unison of St. James and the presbyters
of Jerusalem in xxi. 20 has several parallels in the
earlier parts of the book (St. Peter and St. John, iv.
19/., the whole congregation, iv. 24^"., the Apostles,
i. 24/., and vi. 2/., St. Paul and St. Barnabas, xiii.
46 /. ; xiv. 14^". quite a long discourse! xiv. 22,
cf. xiv. 27 ; xv. 3, 4, 12). Only cursory reference is
made to the teaching and discourses of subordinate
characters (e.g. viii. 35 Philip ; xv. 32 Judas and
Silas ; ix. 27 Barnabas ; xviii. 26 Aquila and Pris-
cilla, &c.). The speeches and they are by no means
few that are attributed to Jewish and Gentile persons
in authority have for the most part one and the same
aim ; cf. the words of the Sanhedrin (iv. 15 ^f.), the
speech of Gamaliel (v. 35 ff.), of Gallio (xviii. 14 /.),
of the Ephesian Grammateus (xix. 35 /.), moreover
xxiii. 9 ; xxiv. 22 ff. ; xxv. 14 ff. ; xxv. 24 ff. ; xxvi.
31 /., as well as the letter of Claudius Lysias (xxiii.
26 ff.). They are intended to bear witness to the
innocence of the Christians in general and of St. Paul
in particular.

In regard to the great speeches both the selection
of ideas and the arrangement in the book are worthy
of notice. The speech of St. Stephen (vii. 2 ff.), that
of St. Peter to Cornelius (x. 28 ff.), those of St. Peter
and St. James at the so-called Council (xv.), and in
directly the three apologies of St. Paul (xxii. 1 ff. ;
xxiv. 10^". ; xxvi. 1 ff.), as well as the shorter fourth
apology (xxviii. 17 ff.), all minister to the main theme
of the book : that the preaching of the Gospel, in

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 129

accordance with the Divine Will, is passing over
from the Jews to the Gentiles. The book opens
with the missionary discourses delivered by St. Peter
before the Jews (ii. 14/.; iii. 12 /. ; iv. 7/., 19 /. ;
v. 29 y.). Parallel to them stand the missionary
discourse of St. Paul to the Jews (xiii. 16 ff.) and to
the Gentiles (xvii. 22 f.\ the latter having a sort of
prelude in xiv. 15 ff. These are with one exception
which will be immediately dealt with all the longer
speeches that are to be found in the book. We see
how completely they are in subordination to the main
purpose of the book, which is to describe the history
of the mission and of the passing over of the Gospel
to the Gentiles. The more remarkable therefore is
the contrast presented by St. Paul s speech at Miletus
(xx. 18y.). Its content is such as to set it somewhat
outside the framework of the book. As is well known
it stands between two we-sections, and it is for this
very reason probable that we have here the report of
words which St. Luke himself had heard, and that
here just as in his account of the perils of the
voyage to Rome he goes more into detail than is
consistent with the plan of his work, because he
allowed himself to be led away by the deep impression
that the scene had made upon him. The speech at
Miletus is therefore most probably authentic, in so
far as a short report can be said to be authentic. 1 It
has, however, been noticed long ago that in spirit
and in phraseology no passage in the Acts is more
closely allied to the Pauline epistles than this speech.

1 Note also that in it subjects are discussed which are not touched
upon elsewhere in the whole book.

130 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

It is also scarcely possible that the remaining
speeches are the product of pure invention (if they
were so the highest praise would be due to the author s
creative and yet astonishingly correct imagination).
How distinctly the speech of St. Stephen stands out
from all the others! The subject itself of the speech
is quite peculiar, and not according to the mind
of St. Luke, who had great reverence for the rdigio
antiqua of the Jews. In the parallel speeches of St.
Peter (ii. 14^". and iii. 12 ff.} the eschatological im
plication of the outpouring of the Spirit is strongly
emphasised, while St. Luke himself seems to regard
this outpouring only as the foundation of the mission,
and facts themselves had refuted the combination of
the outpouring of the Spirit with the Final Judg
ment. Again our Lord appears as avrjp a.Tro$e$eiy-
/zeVo? CLTTO TOV Oeov (ii. 22), whom God had first made
Christ by the Resurrection from the dead (ii. 36), or
again as Tra?? Oeov (iii. 13, cf. iii. 26 ; iv. 27 : o ayio?
Trot?? (TOV 1*70-01/9, ov e^jOtcra?, and iv. 30, but nowhere
else in the book) ; the eTrayyeXia TOV Tri&gt;ev[jt.aTO$ TOV
ayiov which He had now poured forth, was first
imparted to Him at His Ascension (ii. 33). The
speech before Cornelius has similar Christological
traits, and the reminiscence (x. 38) : o? &lt;$ifj\6ev
evepyeTwv KO.I uo/wevo? . . . OTI 6 $eo? ijv yUer avrov,
is unique in the whole non-evangelic literature. Here
again the eschatological point of view is strongly
emphasised (x. 42), and the words: acpecriv a/uLapTiu&gt;v
\a/3eiv Sta TOV o^o/xaro? O.VTOV TravTO. TOV TricrTevovTa
elf avrov (x. 43) are certainly not borrowed from
Paulinism, but contain primitive doctrine. Again

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 131

with what delicate touches is the speech of St.
James, in chap, xv., distinguished from that of
St. Peter ! Are we to assign all this to St. Luke
the Hellenist without any source to guide him ?
And above all how clearly the first two great
programmatic speeches of St. Paul (chaps, xiii. and
xvii.), the first addressed to the Jews, the second
to the Gentiles, are distinguished from the speeches
of St. Peter! Compare only xiii. 38, 39 with
x. 43 (vide siipra"), and think whether in a short
report the likeness and the difference between the
teaching of the primitive apostles and that of St.
Paul could have been more concisely and delicately
expressed than in those words ! As for the speech
at Athens, with its prelude in xiv. 15 ff., if only
critics will again learn to see clearly and to feel
rightly, none of them will fail to recognise that in
this attempt to give a short summary of the prob
able nature of St. Paul s fundamental teaching in his
sermons to Gentiles, the genius shown in the selection
of ideas is just as great as the historical trustworthi
ness of the report.

It is most strange that St. Luke gives us no less than
three great apostolic discourses of St. Paul in close
succession (chaps, xxii., xxiv., xxvi. ; compare, more
over, the speech in Rome, chap, xxviii.). Unless
these separate discourses rested upon some tradi
tional foundation that seemed to the author trust
worthy and important, we can scarcely understand
why one speech did not suffice for him. Probably
he made use of several sources ; for in one source
these sj&gt;eeches would most probably have run together

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

into one. If this, however, be true then it follows
that where the speeches agree the one vouches for
the other, and the critics will at last be compelled to
give up one of those positions to which they cling with
the most inveterate prejudice, the assumption that
St. Paul s doctrine is here brought into too close
accordance with the doctrine of the Pharisees, and
that he is here represented as adopting a line of
defence which is unworthy of himself in that he
renounces his own principles.

CHAPTER IV

MIRACLES AND SUPERNATURAL WORKS OF THE SPIRIT

ACCOUNTS of miracles and works of the Spirit play
so great a part in the Acts of the Apostles that
the mind of the author can be discerned from these
narratives with special clearness. He himself is a
physician endowed with peculiar " Spiritual " gifts of
healing, and this fact profoundly affects his concep
tion of Christianity. Moreover, these records are
also of importance for the discovery of the sources
of the book ; they confirm its unity, but they also
clearly show that distinct groups of subject-matter
exist therein. I first proceed to give a summary of the
material in question (see the tables on pp. 134 et seq.}.

Merely a cursory glance at these tables discovers
a sufficiently striking state of things. Let us, how
ever, commence our closer investigation with a general
survey :

The we-sections, although they comprise only about
one hundred verses (a tenth part of the book), con
tain one summary account of cases of healing, besides
four accounts of single instances of the same sort
(including one case of raising from the dead), two
instances of interference by the Holy Spirit to pre
vent a course of action, the appearance of a man of
Macedonia in a vision, the appearance of the angel

133

134 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

2 a ca ,

-3 bcM

,&B

r-H Q

M CO .0 O ft
H
K

r~* r-S -U

ifra

at*

53 C8 K

8 ,2"

O ^ *u
08 fl =t

t-"l_
5 3J hc 2

S "o o f.
g ea s jj-
B .S 3 t

b.H

212

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 135

-w TO g

-a w o

c 2.^ ^

|j|l|

a -S

rf -^ T3 *^&gt;

W P^ Q

cc v, a

4) Q ^Q O

-S"

p ^ 5 -g a

1 i ~ " %

o
b

ca B _o -

* tti

~c!

_c . -3-.J2 2

o.2&lt;

g C Q. &gt; &lt;-l

ja ^

P-

^ rh " o

C-- 13

b
d

"bisjbi

^ Q co *o o

. s

Q ^M ^j p

i_i

|f||l

i. 9 (The Ascension)
ii. 4 /. (The gift of
tongues)
iv. 31 (Miraculous earth-

quake as a sign from
Heaven)
v. Iff. (The death of Ana
nias and Sapphira)
ix. 8 (St. Paul s blinding)
[xii. 23J ( H erod is smitt en
with a fatal disease)
xiii. 11 (The blinding of
Elymas)

i. 10 /. (The angeli inter
preter at the Ascension)
v. 19 (The angel of the
Lord opens the prison
and speaks to the
Apostles)
[viii. 20] (The angel of
the Lord speaks to St.
Philip ; it can also be
regarded as a vision)

e
/.

*3
5

t-i
i

e author distinguishes sha
it was brought about by t
Cornelius (expressly descri
night, and therefore beloE
augel does not appear, an&lt;

S^S-c -1

c* "^

g-s^S- 2

2 v X

. c ~j Q.

_o c

C C P i "*

^f. -l

5 12 *

^ o

rt gj

t o o o &gt;- .2
o c c v 3

S w

K c

* 4s 2 2 ** 73

^ ^3 i c

1 1 ^9

^ 11 11 *~*

(

X S _a *

C &lt;t ca *j (t

136 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

X i

a o

-" (3 *&gt;

st-a.S&lt;o
. o o&gt;

43 O 02

tT C &lt;o

PH ^

tl. .2"S

.S fe.S

.ri *= P&lt; 03

"^i-H ^ ~* -S

, oc n -5 &gt;

14* 4
O g

c .

cd **

r+ M-l

.d o

^H 05 01}

.75 O O

fe-?-?

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 137

_ _

!fi

138 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

-S to

i- a
e o

irvev
r. ^

H
a

S c

O C3

H H .,.
- O ,

2 to
. O

-^ ^H

K *

a PJ "

ti ID OQ

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 139

m 03 &lt;D i

. 43

X) !H 4&gt;

3 *J ^ ^ 3 +? rf

bo -9 -*

D ft 8

^ 8 I ^ ^

"c -3 i, ^

. O 73 "S "

J; J3 x-. 01

""" d ^"5 5

*j In 1 !

. .c S c ^

S OQ 5 "^ .

e w a -.
.2 fl . 42
. !&lt;2 gdis a

I i

i&gt;

O5 00 "S" 54
fe -.,4 ^

*H * *B

K L^l

073 C 73

s ^.-s

J Jo

^ 2 S "5"

&gt; ^ o

3 "^02 ~.

.2 c o 5

ifjj g "f

? &gt; ^S

* ^ 73 **

P^&lt; J3 O P-* S ^

IB OJ &gt;

-^ a *" % a 2
w C S ,

rj * &gt;

H fl S &?

S 1 ^ -^

~ p el* ^ &lt;

a-i rt C

S . ee jj -S x

.S O A ft

K K

JB a&gt; ^ w

*S a i "S M -.
2 a g "S-"-

i 4

3
cj
O

o .2 ^ a *&gt; ca 9

H ^*

4-4

ft &lt;g ^j fl 5

2 * 01 .2 fij P- 1 r5

1; B - 1

^ ^ 00 ^ -^ f-

ao c

S3 43 ^C (_,

-^ ** w

_fl t\ r* ^ ^^

ft J

*, _o/&gt; D

i-^ ?j-a ^s _ **^_g

o a ft
E H o

Put S

O .

|J _ ^^ a 2

v^- -2 02 "2^*5?*" d

^--^OH^

IS ^

S |l5"l

^ -5 ""! .S S M o &gt; d &gt;

r- a-. o
N fe o
^ &gt;-5 :s

"S ^

S .H H H H

*S S

"S 4&gt;

.J3 "5 O

% &lt;o

c -2

2.5 *"

c"a

tn - t

^i 3

* rt

C ^^

t* O

.2 03

x rt *- ^4

2-2

"^ CO .^"J 5

N V

^J^-CQ .

o
O

140 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

H fl

a +3

"- 1 n

s &

.2 M

"S fl

s--&lt; -q

^-t . .-a

-rt &gt; U

_. -J - -

9 P ^ s

O .2 ^ H"
IW "3 P

I I

o; re

,s&gt;&

a ^=

* tf

T -O O ^

g Sj-.S gj.1

^.S^cS

^ M .3

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 141

of the Lord in a vision, the Tyrians foretelling
the future, Agabus foretelling the future, the
daughters of St. Philip who were prophetesses,
two instances in which St. Paul foretold the future
thus no less than fourteen instances of a " miracu
lous " character recorded in so small a space ! In
correspondence with this abundance we find in the
first half of the book about seventy-seven similar in
stances of a miraculous character. Any one who wishes
may ascertain by calculation that, taking into account
the length of the first fifteen chapters, the proportion
is much the same. Moreover, the categories of our
list again repeat themselves. We again find summary
accounts of cases of healing, accounts of separate
miracles of healing, persons mentioned who speak in
the Spirit, cases where the Spirit acts and speaks,
visions (the appearance of an angel), prophets. On
the other hand, the situation is quite different in the
second half of the book, omitting the we-sections.
Here in passages which picture St. Paul in Philippi
(at the close of his visit), in Thessalonica, in Beroea,
in Athens, in Ephesus, in Jerusalem, in Caesarea, and
in Rome, we find only ten instances of a miraculous
character, and even these suffer serious reduction when
we consider that the earthquake in Philippi was a
natural occurrence treated as a special instance of
Providential interference and so used in the narra
tive ; that the two passages xx. 23 and 28 belong to
a speech of St. Paul which in all probability must be
assigned to the we-sections seeing that it stands in
their midst and that St. Luke was present on the
occasion ; and that xxviii. 25 is the customary

142 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

introduction to a quotation from the Old Testa
ment : TO TrvevjULO. TO ayiov eXaXycrev Sia Hcra /ov TOV
Trpo( }Tov. We are therefore left with only six pas
sages namely, xviii. 9/. ; xix. 2, 6, 11 /., 15 f. ; and
xxiii. 11. Now, however, we at once see that xviii.
9/. and xxiii. 11 are out of organic connection with
the simple narratives in which they stand, and give
the impression of having been thrust into the context
like the lyric Christian passages in certain parts of
the Apocalypse. Only consider :

xviii. (811) : KjOiV?ro? c^e 6 ap^iarvvdywyoy eTr/cr-
TU&gt; Kvpiw uvv oX&lt;w TOO O IKW avTOv, KOI TroXXoi TU&gt;V
/coj a/couovTe? eiricrTevov KOI e/3a7TT/(^oi TO.

fiirev 5e 6 /cuptos ev WKrl Si opa/iaros r
(f&gt;o/3ov, dXXa AaXet KCU p.rj crto)7r?;crys, Stort tyw et/xt /xera
crou, Kat ouSeis eTrt^^crerai crot TOV KaKwcrai ere, SIOTI Aaos
ecrri /xot 7roA.us tv rfj TroAei Tavrrj.

&lt;^e eviavrov KOI /x^ra? e^ 8i8d&lt;TK(i)i&gt; ev CLVTOIS
TOV Xoyof TOV 9eov.

Again xxiii. (1012) : IIoXX^9 e yevo/uievtis a-Tacrews
d&gt;o(3&gt;]9e is 6 ^fX/ao^o? /u.tj Siaa-TracrOr] 6 LLauXos VTT
, eKeXeua-ev TO CTToaTev/ULa KciTa/Sav apTracrai CIVTOV

rfj Sf eTTLOvcrr] I/VKTI 7T6CTTas a.VT(p 6 Kvpios etwev

d)S yap Siyu,apri. pco TO. Trepl f^ov et s lepowaA.?^, OVTCO

ere Sei Kat ei s Pwyu^v ^aprvprjcrai.

TroirjcravTes crvtTTpofpyi oi lovSaiot

eai/TOi/9,
ca&gt;9 o5 aTTOKTeivuxri TOV IlauXov.

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 143

I do not mean it is here a question of later inter
polation into an already complete text it is by no
means necessary to suppose a written exemplar but
the situation seems to be as follows : the author of
the we-sections, i.e. of the whole work, has given the
impress of his own peculiar temperament to accounts
which were at his disposal. In the icliole subject-
matter of the second half of the Acts with the excep
tion of the we-sections * miraculous episodes do not
occur as organic elements of the context except in the
account of St. PauTs ministry in Ephesus (xix. 2 jf.).
Here we have the " disciples of John " who receive
the Spirit and prophesy ; here the exorcism of an evil
spirit ; and here the summary account of instances of
miraculous healing by St. Paul.

The situation here presented is most interesting
and admits of only one explanation. It is clear that
St. Luke whose own we-account shows him to have
been a physician endowed with miraculous gifts of
healing possessed for the first half of his book a
source or sources (oral or written) ivhich was congenial
to his own peculiar temperament. On the other hand
it is also clear that for the second half of his book he
did not possess such sources (with the exception of
what is told us of Ephesus), but only had at his dis
posal simple records into which he has inserted nothing
except two conventional accounts of visions which
illustrate the development of the plot. It cannot be
otherwise ; for if he himself had introduced the
supernatural element into chapters i. xv., it is unin-

1 And of the repeated narrative of St. Paul s conversion, which
may be here neglected.

144 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

telligible why he should have refrained from doing
the same thing in the second half, except, or almost
only except, where he himself was an eye-witness.
That the parts of his narrative where the colour
ing is most sober are not the we-sections, but the
accounts of St. Paul s visits to Thessalonica, Bercea,
Athens, Corinth, Jerusalem (the last visit), Caesarea,
and Rome, is a convincing proof that his narrative
here is kept in close accordance with sources. Either
the records given in these sources contained nothing
of a supernatural character, or what they contained
of this character seemed to him incredible ; naturally,
however, the latter alternative is altogether improb
able when we take into account St. Luke s peculiar
temperament. We reach no solution of the problem
by supposing that the economy of the book pre
vented him from relating supernatural events in these
passages ; for his we-sections are full of the super
natural, and the account of the ministry in Ephesus
shows that even for the second half of his work,
in those passages where he was not an eye-witness,
anything of a supernatural character was most wel
come to him.

The circumstance that in chaps, i. xv. the super
natural element is so abundant, indeed is wanting in
no single chapter, is accordingly a proof that we have
here a body of tradition, homogeneous in its treat
ment of the supernatural, which had been transmitted
to the author in a form and with a colouring that
were congenial to his temperament. That this form
and colouring belonged to the source itself- the question
whether it was oral or written may be left open

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 145

follows not only from the fact that the supernatural
element is almost entirely absent from the second half
of the book (excluding the we-sections and chapter
xix.), but still more clearly from the fact that while
there is much in common between chapters i. xv.
and the we-sections in their attitude to the super
natural, there is much more of the supernatural in
chapters i. xv. than in the we-sections. For in
stance :

1. In the we-sections all that has been included
under category III. namely, what I have called
miracles of a " singular " character is entirely want
ing. Stories like the Ascension, the Gift of Tongues,
the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the blinding of
St. Paul and of Elymas, the mors persecutors Herodis,
have no parallels in the we-sections (naturally also
not in the rest of the second half of the book).

2. In the we-sections realistic appearances of angels
(vide sub IV.), such as we find in i. 10 /. ; v. 19 ; viii.
26 ; xii. 711, are wanting.

3. In the we-sections we are never expressly told
that such and such persons are filled with the Holy
Ghost. The more frequently we meet with such
persons in chaps, i. xv. (vide sub V.) the Apostles in
a body, those who were chosen as the " Seven," St.
Peter, St. Stephen, St. Barnabas, St. Paul, the Chris
tians of Jerusalem, and the Christians of Pisidian
Antioch are so described the more strange it must
seem that nothing of the kind is said of any one in
the second half of the book.

4. In the we-sections are to be found none of the
passages, so frequent in chaps, i. xv., which speak of

146 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

the coming, the giving, the receiving of the Spirit, or
of the being baptized with Him (vide sub VI.).

5. In the we-sections there are no expressions
parallel to those included under category XI.

The absence of these groups from the we-sections
certainly brings out the distinctive character of chaps,
i. xv., but this distinction is no less clearly marked
in the different treatment of parallel material here
and in the we-sections. It is true that in the we-
sections St. Luke appears as a man endowed with
" Spiritual " gifts who seeks for and believes in the
miraculous, yet in the parallel stories of chaps, i. xv.
the miraculous colouring is more thickly laid on.
Compare the summary accounts of miracles, signs, and
wondrous cures (vide sub. I.) in chaps, i. xv. with the
parallel passage XXViii. 9 : /ecu oi \onroi oi ev T$ vijcra)
e^ofre? aaOevcias Trpoa"t]p^ovTO KOI eOepairevovTO, oi KOI
TroAXcu? Ti/J-als TL/m.jjcrav J^ua?. Here no more is said
than a " Christian Scientist " could say, there the
strongest expressions are used ; we are intended to
picture to ourselves the working of the strongest
imaginable miraculous power. Or compare the
accounts of raising from the dead here and there.
In the one case we are told in plain words that
Tabitha was dead and that her " corpse " was already
prepared for the burial, and that St. Peter by prayer
and an authoritative summons brought her to life
again. In the we-sections, on the other hand, there
is nothing told us in the account of the raising of
Eutychus that is in itself extraordinary. Of course
St. Luke regarded, and would have us regard, the
occurrence as an instance of raising from the dead ;

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 147

but he does not embellish the story from this point
of view. It is the same with the story of the snake
in Malta : here also nothing is said which is in itself
extraordinary, though St. Luke would have the occur
rence regarded as a miracle. Nor is it otherwise with
the " Spiritual " element in the strict sense of the
word. In chaps, i. xv., in a quite realistic fashion,
the Spirit is represented as speaking to St. Peter and
St. Philip ; in the we-sections the Christians of Tyre
and Agabus speak in the Spirit, and the Spirit speaks
in visions of the night. In chaps, i. xv. we read
that TTvevfjLa Kvpiou fjpTraa-ev rov $/At7T7rot (viii. 39) on
the public highway ; in the we-sections He hinders or
prevents; but how this happens we are not told (we
must suppose visions or something similar).

It is also very instructive to compare the account
of the so-called first missionary journey of St. Paul
(chaps, xiii. xiv.) on the one hand with the accounts
of the later journeys, and on the other hand with chaps,
i. xii., xv. Every one will at once see that it belongs
to the latter and not to the former section of the book.
In xiv. 3 we read of St. Paul and St. Barnabas : Trap-
prjiria.l^6fJLevoi eirl ry Kvpiw, SiSovTi cry/ueta KCU Tepara
ylvea-Oat Sia TUH&gt; ^etpwv avTcav, just as in numerous
passages in chaps, i. xii. and in xv. 12, while no
parallel passage is to be found in the second half of
the book. The story of the healing of the lame man
in Lystra (xiv. 8^".) has parallels only in iii. \ff. and
in ix. 33 (in each case a lame man in Jerusalem and
Lydda respectively). The story of the punishment
of Elymas by blinding has an analogy only in ix. 8.
Such expressions as 7rA&gt;/$e&lt;9 TTfeJ/xaroy ay. (xiii. 9) and

148 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

01 fJLaOtjTai e-ir\iipovvTO Trvev/jLaros ay. (xiii. 52)
concerning St. Paul and the Christians of Pisidian
Antioch respectively are used in the second part
neither of St. Paul nor of any one of the communities
he founded. Moreover, it is easily recognised that
the whole narrative of chaps, xiii. xiv. (with the
exception perhaps of the scene at Lystra, where the
people are about to sacrifice to the Apostles) is en
veloped in the same atmosphere of generality and
superficiality which is characteristic of most of the
accounts in the first half of the book. It is not that
the author s representation of St. Paul is altogether
different from his representation of the leading figures
of the Primitive Community in chaps, xiii. xiv. he
shows that this is not so but the difference in his
treatment begins just at the point where St. Bar
nabas and St. Paul separate from one another
because of St. Mark. All that is narrated before
this time is essentially of one type, and all that is
narrated afterwards is of a twofold type (namely,
that of the we-sections and that of the remaining
parts), though this does not affect the unity of style
and vocabulary which obtains throughout the whole
book.

Behind chaps, i. xv. there accordingly stands an
authority (or several authorities) who, as a " Christian
Scientist" and a "man of the Spirit," was on the
whole congenial to St. Luke, and whose word went
very far with him, though he was considerably more
credulous and uncritical in regard to the miraculous
than St. Luke himself. St. Luke has not dared to
narrate such stories where he himself was an eye-

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 149

witness, but he trustfully accepts them when they are
vouched for by this authority (or authorities).

Who was this authority, or who were these authori
ties ? It may seem absurd even to propound this
question, and certainly it cannot be satisfactorily
answered on the basis of the material which is here
collected ; yet perhaps some indication may present
itself that may help us to an answer. It is natural
to suppose, and indeed has been already conjectured
by several critics independently of one another, that
the authorities for chap, xix., which is so very distinct
in character from the rest of the narrative in the
second half of the book (vide supra), were the Gaius
and Aristarchus so abruptly mentioned in verse 29.
Aristarchus, moreover and Gaius also according to
the conjecture of Blass together with St. Luke meet
St. Paul again a few months later, and Aristarchus
also joins St. Paul and St. Luke on the voyage to
Rome. The abrupt mention of his name and that
of Gaius in xix. 29 receives its simplest explanation
on the hypothesis that these very men were here St.
Luke s authorities. May we not now attempt to dis
cover among the persons who are mentioned in chaps.
i xv. one or more who might also be claimed as
authorities for what is here recorded ? It must have
been, as has been already remarked, a person of im
posing authority, one whom St. Luke followed with
confidence. The leading personalities in chaps, i xv.
are St. Peter, St. Barnabas, St. Stephen, St. Philip,
and St. Paul. Of these, according to his own testi
mony, he had learned to know St. Philip (also St.
Paul). That he was also acquainted with St. Peter,

150 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

St. Barnabas, and St. Stephen is almost certain in the
case of the first two persons, and quite certainly ex
cluded in the case of the last. Moreover, of persons
belonging to the Primitive Community he knew St.
James, Silas, and St. Mark. 1 St. James, however,
falls quite into the background in the book, and no
one would dream of him as St. Luke s authority. If
therefore this authority is to be sought among the
persons mentioned in the book we can only think of
St. Philip, St Mark, or Silas. That he is to be sought
among these persons is, in my opinion, overwhelm
ingly probable ; for if St. Luke had the opportunity
of gaining information from these persons what
could possibly have prevented him from seizing it ?
Of the three persons just named Silas is expressly
described as a prophet (xv. 32), St. Philip as a great
worker of miracles (viii. 6/. 13), both of them thus
as imposing authorities, a thing which cannot be said
of St. Mark. The latter does not play a very
pleasing part in the book (xiii. 13 ; xv. 37 ff.).
This, however, is as far as we can go at present.

We must, however, now glance at the character of
the miracles narrated in the book. The question
occurs whether these rest upon first-hand information,
or whether they presuppose secondary or even tertiary
tradition. If we neglect the instances of vision, of
prophecy, and of other communications made by the
Spirit, which are not miracles in the strict sense of the
word, we are left in chaps, i. xv. with six instances of
miraculous cure, six (seven) " singular " miracles, and
four realistic appearances of angels.

1 He first learned to know St. Mark in Rome.

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 151

Dealing first with the miracles of healing, there is
nothing in the three accounts of cures of lameness
or in the one account of a cure of blindness that can
be brought forward as evidence against the primary
character of the tradition. In the first place, these
cures of lameness as well as the cure of blindness (the
cure of St. Paul who was sufl ering not strictly from
blindness but from temporary loss of sight) could well
have actually taken place cures, and more especially
cures of lameness, by suggestion are recorded at all
times ; l if, however, this is not allowed, it is never
theless certain that from the very beginning belief
in such miracles was current in the Primitive Com
munity ; nor are the stories told in such a fashion
that primary tradition i.e. tradition originating in
the circle of those directly or almost directly con
cerned must necessarily be excluded. Moreover, the
circumstance that St. Paul, in spite of the stoning,
still remained alive, and could return into the city,
is not related as a miracle, but is intended to be regarded
as an instance of special Divine protection (just as in
the case of the snake-bite at Malta). Of the miracles
of healing there is now left only the raising of
Tabitha from the dead by St. Peter. It is idle to
inquire what really happened on this occasion. It is,

1 Notice also that each of the three accounts of the cure of lame
ness has its own distinctive character. The first (in Jerusalem)
cannot possibly be broken away from the context, for it plainly
gives the occasion for all that follows (indeed probably also for the
outpouring of the Spirit vide infra). The second (in Lydda) is an
isolated anecdote leading on only to the vigorous extension of the
Gospel in Lydda and Sharon. The third (in Lystra) is presupposed
by the story of the apotheosis of St. Barnabas and St. Paul, a story
that could not have been invented.

152 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

however, important that the daughters of St. Philip
told Papias of a case of resurrection from the dead,
and that even Irenaeus writes (II. 31, 2) : o Kvpto?
^yetpev [veicpovs] KOI oi aTrocrroXoi Sia Tnootreu^?, Kal
ev aSe\&lt;poTt]Ti TroXXd/a 9 Sia TO avayKaiov KOI T*?? Kara
TOTTOV e/f/cX 170709 7racr&gt;;? aiTt](ra[ji.evr]$ yuera vrjarTelas /cat
XtTaye/a? TroXX^? eTrecrrpc^sev TO irvev/ma TOV rere-
Xeur&gt;7/coT09 KOI e-^apia-Ot] 6 avOpcoiros rcu? eii-gai? TU&gt;V
ayivv. I consider it to be quite probable that even
during the lifetime of St. Peter stories were current
concerning dead who had been raised again by that
apostle, indeed that he himself may have believed that
he had called a dead woman to life again. It is, more
over, favourable to the hypothesis of a primary tradi
tion that the story, in spite of its crudity, is fixed
in form and ministers to no special tendency. The
event it records did not take place in Jerusalem, but
in Joppa, a place which has no other significance in
early Christian history, and its favourable results
extend only to Joppa and the neighbourhood. None
of the more notable Christians of Jerusalem accom
panied St. Peter thither, and there is in the story no
conscious imitation of a similar event in the Gospel :
St. Peter prayed over the corpse, and then by his
summons brought back to life this old woman, who
had played a part of some importance in the little
Christian community of Joppa. I do not see why
decades of years should have been necessary for the
creation of this legend ; it could well have been told
to St. Luke when he was staying with St. Philip at
Caesarea.

As for the miracles of " singular " character, we

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 153

need not discuss the two cases of sudden blinding (St.
Paul and Elymas) and the punishment of Herod by
death. The latter is simply a real event narrated
from a religious point of view ; St. Paul really lost his
sight for a short time ; and the story of the blinding
of Elymas by St. Paul, which certainly did not occur
in the way we are told, has probably some historical
nucleus, though no one if he is wise will venture to
state what it is, for it is possible to conjecture all
kinds of things. It is enough to know that the Pro-
consul s magician lost his eyesight at the time that
the influence of St. Paul won over his patron. We
cannot well imagine that the story is pure inven
tion ; for why is it that nothing dreadful happens to
Simon Magus, who is painted in much darker colours ?
This negative fact seems to me very important ; for
if St. Luke wished to invent miracles there was no
more fitting place to insert one than here. And for
this very reason I regard the recourse to similar traits
of constant occurrence in novels of those times as
quite uncalled for.

There remain therefore only the Ascension, the
miracle of Pentecost, the Earthquake, and the story
of Ananias and Sapphira. Here also we may at once
eliminate the miracle of Pentecost. The countless
learned essays on this subject are really not worth the
paper on which they are written. There is only need
of a little literary feeling and understanding in order
to recognise that St. Luke the litterateur has here
taken the liberty of dressing up the phenomenon of
" speaking with tongues " in a grandiose style, although
its real nature and its form of manifestation were

154 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

naturally well known to him. There is absolutely no
reason to assume the interpolation of secondary or
tertiary tradition, or the combination of two sources,
or such like hypotheses. Indeed, the very attempt
to analyse and to test the inner unity of this passage
is in itself an artistic crime. Neither is there any
thing extraordinary about the Earthquake of iv. 31.
Besides, it is not a question here of an earthquake in
the strict sense of the word : Setflevrwv avrwv ecra-
\ev9t] 6 TOTTO?, ev (a rjcrav cru^y/xeVot, /ecu eTrXJja-Qrjcrav
dVai Te? TOU ay iov Trfei^uaro?. The trembling of
the ecstasy is transferred also to the place where
they were assembled. Certainly the author intends
a real miracle, but it is just as certain that the
record that such a miracle occurred could have arisen
at once and in the very locality of its supposed
occurrence.

It is otherwise with the story of Ananias and
Sapphira and of the Ascension ; but they are of
quite a different character.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is certainly no
" allegorical fable " (Pfleiderer), and by the fact that
it presupposes not a general community of goods in
the Church of Jerusalem, but a self-sacrifice which
rested with the free-will of the individual, it shows
that it belongs to very ancient tradition. Neither
does it belong to the general plan of the Acts, i.e. it
is not a necessary link in the chain of development of
the narrative, but stands by itself. In its outward
form it is entirely Lukan, though it contains singular
elements in both vocabulary and subject-matter (yoa-^l-

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 155

(ra&lt;r0ai TO ay. Tri&gt;ev/u.a, \l/ev&lt;racr6at ro&gt; Sew, oi vea&gt;Tcpot
[ot veuvia-Koi]). Its point lies in the miraculous know
ledge and power of St. Peter (in the second place,
in the sanctity of the Church, in which every offence
is avenged by God). Here again we cannot say what
really happened, but it is not incredible that the
sudden death of two members of the community, of
doubtful character, should have been regarded in
Jerusalem itself, and even by contemporaries, as a
Divine act of punishment announced by St. Peter ;
and that the account of this event should have
been worked up after the pattern of Jos. vii. and
Levit. x. If, however, we recollect 1 Cor. v. 5, we
may go a step farther and may very well suppose
that St. Peter really pronounced a sentence of
death against the guilty pair and that their death
actually followed (vide Macar. Magn., III. 21, 28).
How this took place scarcely allows of conjecture.
At all events this legend is not one of those
that could only have been created by a later
generation.

On the other hand, the account of the corporal
Ascension is without doubt a narrative that could
not have taken form in the circle of the " Eleven. 11
I have collected together the material for the history
of the tradition of the Ascension in Hahn s Bibllothek
der Symbok, 3 Aufl. s. 382 ff. Apart from the Acts,
it occurs in the New Testament only in the spurious
conclusion of St. Mark, and in the interpolated passage
in St. Luke xxiv. 51. St. Paul has no knowledge of
it ; but there is no need to show how natural it was
that the primitive belief in the descensus and asccnsus

156 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

should take this form in dependence upon the story
of Elijah (for the cloud " cf. St. Mark ix. 7 ; xiii.
26 ; xiv. 62 ; Rev. xi. 12 ; xiv. 14 /.). The most
interesting points are the localisation on the Mount
of Olives, and the term of forty days. The localisa
tion need not necessarily have taken form in Jeru
salem ; yet it is overwhelmingly probable that this
trait had its origin in that city, for such localisations
are wont to be assigned in the place itself. More-
ever, there can be no doubt that the Primitive Com
munity very soon began to embellish the story of the
last days of our Lord with local legends, according
to their own taste, and with a view to their own
glorification. This accretion of legend was facilitated
by the fact that after tivelve years the Apostles left
Jerusalem and only returned thither on short visits.
The Church there stood under the leadership of St.
James, who did not belong to the Twelve. Perhaps
it was only after his death that the legends arose that
our Lord first appeared to him, that the women (or
one woman) saw Him at the empty tomb, and that
accordingly the appearances in Galilee were preceded
by appearances in Jerusalem (the former were then
persistently ignored). At the time when St. Luke
was with St. Paul in Jerusalem these stories could
scarcely have been current. The stories that were
told at that time we learn from 1 Cor. xv. and the
genuine St. Mark, and from St. Matthew. The dis
persion of the Apostles after twelve years, and the
dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem during the
Great War, gave the opportunity for such a luxuriant
growth of semi-doctrinal legends concerning the appear-

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 157

ances of the Crucified in Jerusalem. They took form
in the second generation, perhaps not in Jerusalem,
yet with the view to the glorification of that city,
and then were further developed within the Church
of Jerusalem when it had again gathered together in
its old home.

But if St. Luke had once heard the more trust
worthy story, how could he possibly have bartered
his better knowledge for a later and inferior tradition ?
That he could do so is already shown in the two parts
of his own work when we compare the conclusion of
the first with the beginning of the second ; for here
he has exchanged a secondary for a tertiary tradition.
Why may he not previously have given up a primary
in exchange for a secondary tradition ? In his gospel
he indeed knows of an Ascension in Acts i. 1 ff. he
says in plain words that in his former work he had
carried his narrative down to the point where our
Lord was taken up into Heaven (see also St. Luke
ix. 51) but he only mentions the fact, he does not
picture it as a visible ascension, he does not localise
it on the Mount of Olives, and he does not fix its
occurrence at the end of forty days, but on the day
of the Resurrection. These are all points wherein
this story is superior to the narrative of the Acts,
though it is already legendary in character, and pre
supposes a development of tradition which must have
occupied some considerable period of time. Now,
however, St. Luke has met with what he thinks still
better information, though it is really inferior : now
the Ascension is visible like the ascension of Elijah,
now it takes place on the Mount of Olives, and that

158 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

after a period of forty days of continuous intercourse
with the disciples. If it is thought incredible that
St. Luke could have exchanged the tradition of St.
Paul and St. Mark for that which appears in his
gospel, then it ought also to be thought incredible
that he should have given up the latter tradition in
favour of that which appears in the Acts. And yet
the latter exchange is a fact, unless we are to assume
that the first twelve verses (certainly not intact) of
the Acts have been, even to their innermost nucleus,
edited and recast. There are, however, no grounds
for such a radical hypothesis. Hence it follows that
St. Luke has twice exchanged his better knowledge
for that which is worse.

Yet, after all, is this so strange ? Has not Chris-
tology its own history ? and must we assume that its
influence could not have been as strong as that of actual
history ? The problem here in question is simple
compared with the problem of the gospel of St. Mark,
i.e. compared with the problem presented by the fact
that the legendary traditions concerning Christ actu
ally took form within the Primitive Community during
the first thirty years and under the very eyes of those
who had witnessed the events themselves ! Later
legends and legends with a doctrinal tendency show
themselves even more powerful than the memory of
the actual history ; and even the recollections of eye
witnesses are modified and transformed under the
dominating influence of the thought " So it must
have happened " ! When some considerable time
after the destruction of Jerusalem St. Luke wrote
his gospel perhaps in Asia he reproduced the

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 159

story of the last days of our Lord according to a
recension which, though originating in Jerusalem,
coincided in important points with the Johannine
type. It was not until afterwards that he accepted
the myth of the forty days and of the visible Ascen
sion, and gave his vote for it in the Acts of the
Apostles. This myth belongs to the by no means
small number of those myths in which Israelitish and
Hellenic ideas encounter one another. Those who
suppose that the legend of the Ascension of our Lord
took form on the soil of Gentile Christianity and in
dependence upon the myths of the apotheosis of
heroes and emperors are certainly mistaken, and yet
it is no wonder that these legends when they reached
the genuine Hellene were especially welcome, and
therefore regarded as especially worthy of credence.
Now for the first time, according to his view of
things, the story of the Saviour of the World whose
birth had been celebrated by the angelic choirs had
received its appropriate finale ! Therewith all earlier,
more or less unsatisfying, " conclusions " were set
aside.

It is true, therefore, that stories of miracles in the
first fifteen chapters of the Acts include, in the story
of the Ascension, a tertiary legend, indeed a myth,
although St. Luke was originally better informed and
also knew well what was written in the gospel of
St. Mark ; yet his reason for exchanging his better
knowledge for the worse admits of very easy explana
tion. All the other stories of miracles occurring in
these chapters, including the story of Ananias and
Sapphira, can be ascribed to primary tradition, even

160 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

though here and there a story has been worked up. 1
It ts a remarkable fact that (apart from the Ascension)
only the miracles of the Lame Man, of tlie Death of
Ananias and Sapphira, and of the Release of St. Peter
from prison, are related in connection with Jerusalem
itself? This self-restraint vouches well for the rela
tive trustworthiness of the Jerusalem accounts ; but
we may also say, in regard to all the miracles narrated
in the Acts, that measured by the miracles of the
Acta Pauli or of the Acta Johannis and later apocry
phal Acts of Apostles they appear scarcely miracles
at all. The miracles of the we-sections are almost
all miracles of the first degree ; the miracles in chaps.
i. xv. are partly of the same degree, partly, however,
miracles of the second degree. The miracles of the
so-called apocryphal Acts are miracles of the second
or third degree. By miracles of the third degree I

1 I have not as yet dealt with the four realistic appearances of
angels. The first (i. 10/.) is insignificant ; the two " men " at the
Ascension as angeli interprets are almost necessary embellishments
of such narratives (cf. the appearance of angels at the sepulchre).
The two narratives, v. 19 and xii. 7-11 (the angel unlocking the
prison) are evidently doublets (on this vide infra). The more
ancient form here is that St. Peter (not " the Apostles ") was mira
culously (i.e. by an angel) released from prison (chap. xii.). We
may suppose that such a wonderful (i.e. entirely unexpected)
release really occurred ; the details of the story vouch for this. It
was the general belief that every child of God, and especially
St. Peter (xii. 15), had his own guardian angel. This at once
afforded a means for explaining the manner of the deliverance, and
even if we cannot suppose that Sf. Peter himself told the story as
we read it in chap, xii., still it could have been so told by his friends,
Laslty, the speaking of the angel to St. Philip (viii. 26) is as a
"miracle" insignificant.

2 The remaining miracles are connected with Damascus, Lydda,
Joppa, Cyprus, and Lystra.

MIRACLES AND WORKS OF THE SPIRIT 161

mean those absurd stories of wonders which have not
the tiniest substratum of fact, but are demonstrably
either false inventions from beginning to end or old
stories of miracles or popular myths in a new setting.
The critics of the Acts of the Apostles have not as a
rule a sufficient acquaintance with this unwieldy col
lection of fabulous stories. If they knew them they
would not make so much ado about the stories of
miracles in the Acts.

The observation made above that only three stories
of miracles are connected with Jerusalem suggests an
inquiry into the whole question of the grouping of
the narratives of the Acts. Starting in this way we
may perhaps approach nearer to the solution of the
enigma which the book presents. The next chapter
is dedicated to this question.

CHAPTER V

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE

IF St. Luke the Physician is the author of the Acts,
the question of sources is simply and speedily settled
for the whole second half of the book. So far as
a considerable portion of this second half is con
cerned, he has written as an eye-witness, and for the
rest he depends upon the report of eye-witnesses who
were his fellow- workers. For what occurred during
the second and third missionary journeys Timothy
and Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia (xix. 29 ;
xx. 4 ; xxvii. 2) come into the first line of considera
tion (vide supra, p. 149). As for the narrative of
what occurred during the final visit to Jerusalem and
Caesarea we cannot point to any definite person who
formed the author s authority here ; but during the
long voyage from Caesarea to Rome which immediately
followed these events, St. Luke was actually the com
panion of St. Paul. It is in itself improbable that the
second half of the book (from xvi. 6 onwards) depends
upon written sources, nor do we anywhere find indica
tions of their existence. 1 It has, however, been already
shown (pp. 141^.) that the records which stood at the
author s service for this portion of the book are

1 Whether the cases of discrepancy presuppose the use of sources

is discussed later.

162

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 163

sharply distinguished by their sobriety from the
sources for the first half of the book. 1

As for the first half of the book, every attempt to
make a scientific analysis of the sources on the basis
of vocabulary and style has proved abortive. A most
thorough and detailed investigation has taught me
that everything here is so " Lukan " in character that
by the method of linguistic investigation no sure
results can be attained. The style of the first half
is certainly distinguishable from that of the second
half by certain obvious and tangible characteristics
(ride " Luke the Physician," pp. 106^!) ; yet not only
is the agreement much greater than the difference,
but the problem which here exists is only part of the
problem which dominates the whole question of the
relationship between the gospel and the Acts. St.
Luke is an artist in style, and always modifies his
style in accordance with the content of his narrative
and the geographical scene of action (vide toe. cit.,
103 ff.) ; from this established fact it follows that
differences of style do not necessarily imply different
sources. It is true that sources may lie in the back
ground in the gospel, for instance, by noting differ
ences of style it might perhaps have been possible to
arrive at a source like St. Mark and another like Q,
even if we did not possess the gospels of St. Mark
and St. Matthew (vide my " Sayings of Jesus," Williams
and Norgate, 1908) ; but in no part of the Acts can
the use of sources be proved on the basis of linguistic
investigation.

1 Local colouring is found in the second half only in the narra
tive of events in Ephesus and in the account of the voyage.

164 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

In the face of this negative result our inquiry into
the first half of the book must approach the ques
tion from other starting-points from the scenes and
persons with which the narrative is concerned. All
historical traditions are attached to persons or places ;
they are either local or personal or both together.
St. Luke was necessarily dependent upon tradition.
The scene, vipon which the primitive history of the
Church was enacted, was far removed from him, the
Hellene, not only in time and space, but also in
temperament and spirit. And yet it is on the other
hand most important to recollect that he had been
in Palestine even though probably only on a flying
visit ; that he had learned to know the Christian
communities of Jerusalem, Caesarea, and some churches
on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean ; that in
company with St. Paul he had worked with Silas of
Jerusalem, and in Rome with St. Mark, another
native of Jerusalem ; that he even came into personal
contact with St. James, the Lord s brother ; and that
he had stayed in the house of St. Philip the Evan
gelist (vide supra, pp. 149,/!). 1 There is surely com-

1 His acquaintance with, or fellowship in labour with, St. Paul s
Hellenic fellow-workers, does not concern us here. The circum
stance that Titus is not mentioned in the Acts would only present
a difficulty if Titus were so constantly with St. Paul, and so in
timately bound up with his ministry as was Timothy and, for a
period of time, Silas. But in all probability he was as independent
as St. Luke himself, and only temporarily placed himself at the
disposal of the Apostle. He is, moreover, probably included in the
words " KO.I Tivas AXXous " of Acts xv. 2, and perhaps also in xv. 35
(fj-tra Kal ertpuv vo\\ui&gt;). By mentioning the ctXXot St. Luke salves
his own conscience as an accurate historian, and clearly enough
informs us that he does not wish to suppress anything, though he

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 165

munication enough here to .explain the character of
the material for chaps, i. xvi. 5 of the Acts and the
means by which it was acquired ; and it is obvious
that we must start our critical investigation with the
discussion of these means of communication. Whether
these will suffice, i.e. whether we may not be com
pelled to search for other sources of information, is a
wider question.

Considering first the scenes of action we find that
they are as follows :

Chaps, i. viii. 1. Scene Jerusalem.

Chap. viii. 1, 4. Scene at ywpai rtjs lovSaias KCU

Chap. viii. 5-25. Scene Samaria and Jerusalem.
Chap. viii. 2640. Scene The coast of Philistia

(Azotus and Caesarea ; starting from Jeru

salem : viii. 26).

Chap. ix. 130. Scene Damascus and Jerusalem.
Chaps, ix. 32 xi. 18. Scene The coast of Philistia

(Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea) and Jerusalem.
Chap. xi. 1930; xii. 25. Scene Antioch and

Jerusalem.

Chap. xii. 1-24. Scene Jerusalem (and Caesarea).
Chaps, xiii. 1 xiv. 28. Scene Antioch, and the

places in south-eastern and central Asia Minor

visited by the mission which started from

Antioch.

thinks that he is justified in confining himself to the express mention
of St. Paul and St. Barnabas as the chief characters. Besides, it is
clear from Gal. ii. 1 (nerd. Bapv. ffvnirapa.\a.pwv ical firov) and
Gal. ii. 9 (where Titus is wanting) that the others were really only
secondary characters. St. Luke s procedure is therefore fully
justified.

166 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Chap. xv. 135. Scene Antioch and Jerusalem ;
xv. 36 xvi. 5, a fresh visit to the churches of
Syria, Cilicia, and south-eastern Asia Minor
(forming the transition to what follows).
This survey seems to teach us that, with the ex
ception of xiii. 1 xiv. 28, a section which begins and
ends in Antioch, we are throughout concerned with
traditions connected with Jerusalem ; for even where the
action of the narrative is carried on in other scenes,
Jerusalem still remains the place whence it proceeds
and to which it in many instances returns. We might
accordingly formulate the very simple conclusion that
the Acts in its first half, with the exception of chaps,
xiii. and xiv., presents us with tradition purely con
nected with Jerusalem.

But the matter is not so simple as this. The
" interpolated " passage, with its horizon so clearly
Antiochean, of itself incites us to inquire whether
Antiochean tradition may not be traced earlier in the
book ; and in chap, xv., also, we find that the narra
tive starts from Antiocli (xv. 1 /.), and returns thither
(xv. 3035). Closer investigation shows that the
Antiochean character of chap. xv. is as clear as that of
chaps, xiii. xiv. ; for the arrangement of both passages
is exactly parallel ; the narrative begun in Antioch
passes over to other scenes, and returns back to Antioch
again. Accordingly xiii. 1-xv. 35 is Antiochean
tradition, because the principal scene of action is
Antioch. With this conclusion agree the exact state
ments concerning prophets and teachers in Antioch
in xiii. 1, and the details given in xv. 1, 2, and xv.
3035. It has been thought that a quite new divi-

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 167

sion of the book begins with xiii. 1, because the section
opens with the words : t}&lt;rav Se ev Ai/rto^e/a /cara
Tqv ovcrav KK\)]ariav Trpo&lt;pt]Tai KOI SiSdcrKaXoi. But
it was necessary to mention the name " J Avrio-^eia "
here (instead of omitting the name as in xii. 25 and
writing there "), because even in xii. 25 the name
of the city is left to be supplied after vTreurpe^/av,
and it would have meant too great reliance upon the
memory of the reader if the name of the city had
been again unexpressed. Again, the purpose of the
words Tt]v ovcrav eKK\r]&lt;riav is not to inform us that
there was a church in Antioch, but to distinguish the
prophets who are here named as belonging to this city
from those prophets belonging to Jerusalem who had
come down to Antioch (xi. 27 ff.). Hence xiii. 1 ff.
necessarily presupposes not only xii. 25 but also xi.
2730. But now we at once notice that this section,
although it introduces a journey of St. Barnabas and
St. Paul to Judaea and Jerusalem, is nevertheless
written from the standpoint of Antioch even if we
do not accept the reading of Codex D (a-vve&lt;rrpafjL/j.V(av
fii^tov) as original (this reading is correct in that it
marks that the tradition here belongs not to Jeru
salem but to Antioch) for it is to Antioch that
the prophets come from Jerusalem, and the Apostles
depart from Antioch and return thither again (while
nothing is said about the return of the prophets who
came from Jerusalem). The setting of this passage
is therefore found to be exactly similar to that given
in xiii. 1 /. and xiv. 26 /., and in xv. 1 ff. and xv.
3035. Thus all from xi. 27 xv. 35 is Antiochcan
tradition, with the exception of xii. 1-24, a piece of

168 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Jerusalem tradition which we can now see has been
interpolated here.

But the passages written from the standpoint of
Antioch do not first begin with xi. 27, rather as has
been long recognised xi. 27 ff. presupposes xi. 1926
a passage of even central importance indeed, is bound
up with it. In this passage the rapid development
of the narrative is from the beginning directed towards
Antioch, and in the shortest space presents a wonder
ful wealth of information (the preaching to the Gen
tiles ; the foundation and the rapid growth of the
Church ; the sending of St. Barnabas from Jerusalem
to Antioch ; St. Barnabas 1 approval of the mission
to the Gentiles, and the part he took in it ; the
bringing of St. Paul from Tarsus to Antioch by St.
Barnabas ; their united missionary work in the city
during a whole year ; the origin of the name " Chris
tians " in Antioch). These facts in themselves, and,
above all, the statement concerning the origin of the
name " Christians," leave no room for doubt that we
have here Antiochean tradition, even if xi. 1926
were not bound up so closely as it is with what
follows. It is not even forgotten that the first persons
who dared to preach the Gospel directly to Gentiles
and that first in Antioch ; for this is expressly
emphasised were exclusively Christians of Cyprus
and Cyrene.

Their names are not mentioned, though afterwards
the prophets and teachers of Antioch are introduced
by name. This, however, cannot be because they met
with slight success for in xi. 21 we learn just the
opposite but only because they were not authorised

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 169

prophets and teachers, or rather were not prophets
and teachers by profession.

But these Christians of Cyprus and Cyrene who
preached in Antioch, and founded in that city the
mission to the Gentiles, are introduced in xi. 19 f. as
members of an already well-known group namely,
those Christians who had fled from Jerusalem because
of the episode of St. Stephen. They are introduced
by the words : ot /xef ouv Siaa-irapevres O.TTO Tt]s $A/\J/-eft&gt;?
TJ;? yevo/j.ei tjf eir) ^Lredxivw. The narrative thus goes
back for some 146 verses, and connects directly with
viii. 1, 4, as if nothing had intervened (note the catch
word Sie(nrdpt]crav in viii. 1 and ot JJLCV ovv Siaa-Tra-
pevre? in viii. 4). Thus viii. 1, 4 also belong to the
Antiochean group of narratives.

Now conies the question, how much more of the
preceding part of the book must we assign to this
group ? In order to answer this question it is obvious
that we must begin with vi. 1 ff. ; for all that pre
cedes is of a different character, and is exclusively
connected with Jerusalem. Besides, as we shall see
more clearly later, vi. 1 ff. is sharply distinguished
from chaps, i. v. by the character and the precision
of its narrative.

In vi. 1-6 we have the account of the election of
the seven deacons in consequence of a controversy in
the Church between the Hellenists and the Hebrews.
Among the seven Stephen comes at once to the front
Tri(TTe(i)$ KCU TrvevjuLciTOs aymv, again
KOI Suva/mews CTroiet TepaTCt KOI &lt;Tt]/Jieia
fuya\o ev TW Xaa&gt;, again */ (ro(pia KCU TO 7rvcu/j.a u&gt;
cXaXet, compare the description of Barnabas in xi.

170 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

24 : avrjp ayaOos KOI 7r\r ipt]s TrveJ/zaro? ayiov KOI
7r/crTew9), all the rest are simply named with the sole
exception that the words " Trpoa-^Xvrof Aimo^e^y "
are added to the name of Nicolas (vi. 5). Thus two
traits that the native of Antioch is the only one of
the " Seven " whose place of origin is mentioned and
that the Hellenists are introduced in controversy with
Hebrews a kind of preparation for the "EAX^i/e? in
xi. 20 make it in itself probable that vi. 1-6 belongs
to xi. 19 ff. But there are yet closer bonds of con
nection between the two passages. For we must
necessarily ask why this account of the choice of the
seven deacons, which stands out in such contrast to
the narratives of chaps, i. v., has been given at all.
Taking account of what follows we at once perceive
that this election forms in one way or another the
starting-point of no less than three lines of narrative :

(1) St. Stephen^ controversy with the Hellenistic
Jews, and then all that follows up to the preaching
of the Gospel in Antioch by those who had been
scattered by the persecution concerning Stephen ;

(2) the missionary activity of St. Philip in Samaria,
&c. ; (3) St. Paul s zeal in persecution and his con
version on the way to Damascus. But it is only the
first line which is really organically connected with
the election of the " Seven " ; for the two others this
election is not an essentially necessary presupposition,
nor are they especially concerned with the distinction
between Hebrews and Hellenists. On the other hand,
the connection is vital and complete throughout the
following series of events :

1. A dispute arises between Hebrews and Hellenists;

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 171

2. In order to remove the causes of the dispute
seven Hellenists are chosen as deacons;

3. One of them, Stephen, contends with the rigidly
orthodox Hellenists, and is accused of uttering blas
phemy against " the holy place " and the Law and
of proclaiming the destruction of the Temple and
the abolition of the edtj of Moses ;

4. A persecution arises, Stephen is put to death,
and the Christians of Jerusalem (except the Apostles
thus not all the Christians of Jerusalem but most
probably only the Hellenistic Christians) are compelled
to leave Jerusalem ;

5. At first they are dispersed throughout Judaea
and Samaria, where they preach, but afterwards they
wander farther, extending their mission to Phoenicia,
Cyprus, and Antioch ; and some of them, men of
Cyprus and Cyrene, preach the Gospel to the Greeks
in Antioch.

This is evidently a single connected narrative, the
goal of which is from the first Antioch and the
mission to the Gentiles, and which for this very reason
begins with the controversy in Jerusalem itself be
tween Hebrews and Hellenists. Its unity can, more
over, be proved from considerations of form ; for
in the story of St. Philip not only is there no special
emphasis laid upon the circumstance that the Samari
tans differed in religion from the Jews, but also this
story is itself obviously and confessedly a digression.
In fact, in viii. 4, St. Luke already makes a start to
tell what he is about to tell us in xi. 19. He com
mences with the words : ot /JLCV ovv Siaa-Trapevres SirjX-
6ov, i.e. with the same words with which he commences

172 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

in xi. 19. But instead of continuing : (SirjXOov) eW
&lt;&oiviKtj? KOI Kinrpov KOI Avrio^e/a?, he confines him
self, without naming the countries, to the general
phrase : (Si&gt;j\Qov) evayyeXi^o/nevoi TOV \6yov, so that
it was possible for him to pass over to the story of
St. Philip, to connect therewith other digressions,
and not to take up the thread again until xi. 19.
Hence all that comes between viii. 4 and xi. 19 is
digression, and accordingly vi. 18 and xi. 19 xv. 35
(with the exception of xii. 1-2-i) form one great
homogeneous passage which stands in sharp contrast
to the rest of the context : It is an Antiochean tradi
tion^ distinguished as such by the phrase Nixro Aao?
irpocnjXvTos Aj/Tio^ev? at the very beginning, charac
terised as such by the fact that the point is through
out directed towards Antioch, and proved to be such
by the indissoluble connection of the earlier sections
with the concluding sections, which are unquestionably
Antiochean in character. In view of the verbal coin
cidence between viii. 4 and xi. 19 the question must
occur whether a written source does not here lie in the
background. The argument in favour of this conclu
sion is strong, but taken by itself it is not convincing ;
it is also possible that St. Luke may have repeated
his own words.

But there is yet another consideration which makes
it probable that St. Luke is here dependent on a
written source. In vi. 13 the witnesses who charge
St. Stephen with blasphemy against the Temple and
the Law are described as false witnesses, and then
there follows the long speech of St. Stephen ; this
speech, however, not only breaks off prematurely, but

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 173

also shows evident traces of the hand of an editor,
for while its depreciatory attitude towards the Temple
is still clearly recognisable, its attitude towards the
Law is quite obscure. It is not, therefore, too bold
a conjecture to suppose that at the background here
there lies a source in which the accusations concern
ing the Temple and the Law (vide The Trial of
Christ") were not described as false accusations, and
in which the speech of St. Stephen had a sharper tone
(in reference to the Law), and also contained at its
close the declaration that Iqcrovs /caraAi/cret TOV TOTTOV
TOVTQV KOI a\\dei TO. e6tj a TrapeSwicev Mcoi/cr^?. It
would be quite in correspondence with St. Luke s
reverence for the Old Testament and for the pious
ordinances of the ancient religion which was all the
greater because he did not know them from within
that he should have softened the tones here. Then,
however, it is probable that for vi. 1 viii. 4, and xi. 19-
xv. 35 (xii. 124 may be neglected in this connection)
he possessed a written source. The unity of this source
cannot, of course, be absolutely proved, but when we
consider how the passages vi. 1 viii. 4 and xi. 1930
carry on a connected and purposeful development
of events whose goal is Antioch, and as we note
the Antiochean setting of chaps, xiii. and xiv., as
well as of xv. 135, this hypothesis seems at all
events probable. We may also point out that in the
first half of the Acts it is only in these Antiochean
passages (and in chap, ix., a chapter which stands
by itself) that the Christians are called ot
and that the Apostles (vi. 2) are called ot
and that such detailed accounts as those of vi. 5 ;

174 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

vi. 9; xi. 19, 20; and xiii. 1 are almost without
analogy elsewhere in the first half of the book.

But is all the rest of the first half of the book,
namely, chaps, i.v. ; viii. 5-xi. 18; xii. 124, really
tradition connected with Jerusalem and also homo
geneous ? As a matter of fact the whole narrative
of chaps, i.v. is connected with Jerusalem, and we
may say that all the rest has Jerusalem for its
setting ; but two considerations demand further ex
amination. In the first place, the narrative concern
ing St. Paul in ix. 128 l (to which vii. 58 b and viii.
1*, 3 also belong) has Jerusalem indeed for its
setting, but the fact that parallel accounts exist in
xxii. 316 and xxvi. 918, of itself shows that we
have here tradition of a distinctive character, and
the possibility that St. Luke may have derived his in
formation from St. Paul himself, compels us to treat
this passage separately. It is also deficient in con
nection with the rest of the narratives. In the second
place, the stories of St. Philip, though their scene of
action lies outside Jerusalem, and also the records of
the mission of St. Peter in Palestine, are certainly
closely dependent upon Jerusalem ; and yet there is
another city to which they give special prominence,
namely, Caesarea. We read first at the conclusion
of the stories of St. Philip : ^/AfTTTro? evpeOtj e*V
"Afcorov, KOI Siep^o/nevos evrjyyeXuCeTO ret? TroXei?
Tracra? ea&gt;9 TOV e\6eiv O.VTOV etV K.aicra.piav (viii. 40).
It is thus expressly noted that St. Philip took up his
lasting abode in Caesarea, and in this way we are
prepared for xxi. 8, 9. Secondly, the conversion of
1 The limits here are uncertain.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 175

the centurion, an event only inferior in importance to
that of chap. xi. 19 jf., has its scene in Csesarea ;
further the express, yet seamingly superfluous, in
formation is given that the brethren who conducted
St. Paul from Jerusalem to Tarsus came with him to
Caesarea (ix. 30) ; and lastly, there is the record of the
punishment of Herod by death in Caesarea (xii. 19^1)
a piece of supplementary information which lies
quite outside the economy of the book. We must,
therefore, describe the sections viii. 540 ; ix. 29 xi.
18; xii. l24&lt; as Caesarean tradition, or rather as
tradition connected with both Jerusalem and Caesarea.
There is also a piece of personal tradition (the Con
version of St. Paul, ix. 128). It has, however, been
shown in the previous chapter that all these tradi
tions are strictly homogeneous in their attitude to
the supernatural, and that this character cannot have
been first impressed upon them by St. Luke ; for
otherwise it must have appeared in those parts of
the second half of the book where the " we " does
not occur ; here, however, this character is almost
entirely wanting.

The passages i. v. ; viii. 540 ; ix. 29 xi. 18 ; and
xii. 124, do not give an impression of literary homo
geneity such as would lead us to conclude that they
are derived from a single source ; but we cannot come
to close quarters with this question until we have
investigated the content of these passages with special
reference to the chief personalities with which they
are concerned.

The Antiochean traditions, as read in St. Luke,
begin with St. Stephen, whom they extol while St.

176 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Paul does not mention him in any of his epistles
and then pass over from the " men of Cyprus and
Cyrene " to St. Barnabas and St. Paul, gradually giving
to the latter ever greater prominence (up to xiii. 7
St. Barnabas stands in the foreground xiii. 9 St.
Paul s change of name xiii. 13 01 irepi HavXov in
xiii. 43, 46, 50 ; xv. 2 [bis], 22, 35 St. Paul stands
first xiv. 20 e^tjXOev &lt;rvv rw Bapvdfia but in xiv.
12; xiv. 14; xv. 12, 25, St. Barnabas still stands
first). This gradually increasing accentuation of the
importance of St. Paul, and the introduction of the
name " Paul " for " Saul," are certainly due to St.
Luke, and were foreign to the source, as may be seen
even from xiv. 14 and xv. 12, 25. Hence we may
not describe the Antiochean tradition as Pauline
tradition, but must characterise it by the three names
Stephen Barnabas Saul. In it St. Barnabas is
regarded as equal to, indeed as superior in importance
to, St. Paul as with St. Stephen we are told some
thing of his character and antecedents (vide supra},
nothing of the kind is told us of St. Paul ; again, St.
Barnabas is a prophet, St. Paul only a teacher. This
again shows us that we are here concerned with a
separate tradition which has been touched up by St.
Luke. 1 According to this source St. Paul was not
the originator of the mission to the Gentiles ; on the
contrary, the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were first in

1 It is even possible that, in the source, St. Stephen and St.
Barnabas were treated as the chief characters, and that Saul played
only a secondary part. In favour of this hypothesis we have xv.
37: Ba/)va/3dj e/ScwXero ffv/j.Trapa.Xafie iv Kal rbv ludvrqv (cf. also Trapa-
\a.p6vTa in verse 39), if we may press the words. Yet it is no longer
possible to speak here with certainty.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 177

the field, and were followed by St. Barnabas, and
only in the third place by St. Paul. In its references
to Jerusalem this source is interested in the attitude
of the Church as a whole; otherwise only in St. Peter
and in St. James (chap, xv.), who is regarded as of
equal importance with St. Peter. Here (in contrast
with Gal. ii. 9) all remembrance of the attitude of
St. John has vanished ; on the other hand, the memory
of the two men who were at that time sent from
Jerusalem to Antioch has been preserved ; they were
the prophets Judas Barsabbas and Silas. The rela
tions between Jerusalem and Antioch are, on the
whole, carefully depicted. First Barnabas came from
Jerusalem to Antioch as an ambassador (xi. 22), then
a whole deputation of prophets (xi. 27), then teachers
(xv. 1), then Judas and Silas. We are to note that
these were all prophets or teachers ; evidently it was
considered that such men were alone suitable to con
duct negotiations, and to establish relations in the
correct way. By the mention of the thrice repeated
despatch of prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch,
and by the journeys of St. Paul and St. Barnabas
from Antioch to Jerusalem, this body of tradition is
again held together and characterised as homogeneous.
Through the whole of these sections there also runs
a connected theme : the foundation of the mission
to the Gentiles in the foundation of the Church of
Antioch, the extension of this mission from Antioch
and its firm establishment by St. Barnabas and St.
Paul up to its full recognition hy the mother church
of Jerusalem, which had from the beginning benevo
lently fostered good relations with Antioch, while

178 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

on the part of Antioch there was no want of filial
deference to Jerusalem.

The traditions connected with Jerusalem, and with
both Jerusalem and Caesarea, have in chaps, i v. St.
Peter as their centre (in iv. 36 St. Barnabas is thrust
into the context by St. Luke, very carelessly and
inartistically so far as form is concerned, but in order
to prepare for his later ministry ; also St. John here
and later in the work is depicted in quite a shadowy
fashion). In viii. 5-40 St. Philip and St. Peter form
the central points ; in ix. 29 xi. 18 and xii. 124
St. Peter again stands by himself. We must accord
ingly describe these traditions as Petrine, with the
proviso that two passages connected with St. Philip are
found among them (viii. 5-13 ; viii. 26-40). The first
is closely bound up with the Petrine sections by the
Petrine passage viii. 1425 ; but the second is quite
independent, neither does the first lose anything of
its real independence because of its conjunction with
the Petrine sections. St. Philip here plays a primary
part. Accordingly these traditions fall into two divi
sions very unequal in extent, the larger of which is
grouped exclusively round St. Peter, the smaller round
St. Philip. This distinction does not, however, coin
cide with the distinction between tradition purely
connected with Jerusalem and that connected with
Jerusalem and Cassarea ; in fact, the latter body of
tradition is connected not only with St. Philip but
also with St. Peter.

The Jerusalem-Cresarean tradition (viii. 540 ; ix.
29 xi. 18), concerned both with St. Peter and St. Philip,
may be regarded as an unity, for the style of narrative

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 179

is the same, and the sections are bound together by
similar traits. Moreover, the passage xii. 1-24 must
be assigned to the same collection ; for it is connected
both with Jerusalem and Caesarea and gives the
necessary completion to the narrative of viii. 5-40
and ix. 29-xi. 18. As for chaps, i. v., this passage of
fundamental importance for the Acts is certainly not
homogeneous, rather we can trace in it at least two
strains of tradition. This fact has been long recog
nised with more or less clearness, though its details
have been worked out in various ways. By means of
a criticism totally wanting in method, and with an
exaggeration which is simply colossal, the conclusion
has actually been drawn that throughout the whole
of the Acts, or at least throughout the greater half of
that book, there run two parallel sources, veritable
twin writings ! We now proceed to state all that
can be safely concluded on the basis of methodical
investigation.

Every one who carefully reads chaps, ii.-v. and
attempts to realise the connection and succession of
events recorded in those chapters must necessarily
recognise that the whole second chapter and chap. v.
17-42 are elements which disturb and obstruct the
(low of the narrative are, in fact, doublets which
are in more than one respect liable to exception. If
we at first simply omit them we arrive at the follow
ing scheme of narrative :

1. St. Peter and St. John go to the Temple; the
cure of the impotent man (iii. 110), clearly recorded
as the first astounding miracle, one which determines
the whole following course of events.

180 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

2. St. Peter s great missionary sermon in Solomon s
Porch on the occasion of the miracle that had been
wrought (iii. 11-26).

3. The extraordinary effect of the miracle and the
sermon (5000 souls are said to have been converted x ) ;
St. Peter and St. John are at evening cast into prison
by the Jewish authorities [the Sadducees are specially
mentioned] (iv. 1-4).

4. The hearing in the morning ; St. Peter s mis
sionary discourse before the Council (the cure of the
impotent man is still the fact upon which the argu
ment rests) ; the command not to preach the Gospel ;
the protest of St. Peter and St. John against the
same (" Judge ye yourselves whether it is right in
the sight of God to hearken to you more than unto
God ") ; the dismissal of the Apostles because of fear
of the people (iv. 5-22).

5. The return of the Apostles to their brethren ; 2
the great thanksgiving of the assembly ending with
the prayer : $09 TO?? SovXois crov /mera Trappt]orias
7rccc7&gt;/? \a\tv TOV \oyov &lt;rov, ei&gt; TW T;;C X *P a ^ KT ^ elv
ere e/? *a&lt;riv tcai cnj/meia KOI Tepara yivea-Oai $ia TOV
ov6u,a.TO&lt;; TOV ayiov TratSo? crov L/croi/ (iv. 2330).

6. Directly afterwards thus still before mid-day
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit accompanied by
a kind of earthquake ; the immediate result: eXaXovv
TOV \oyov TOV Oeov juera Trappya-ias, further result :
they were all of one mind, neither said any that
ought of the things which he possessed was his

1 Have we not here one cipher too many 1 Vide 1 Cor. xv. 6 :
tvciv j) TrfVTaK&crioi a.8e\&lt;pot.

2 Thus still before mid-day.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 181

own, and Suvdjuei /ue-yaXp aireSiSovv TO jj-aprvpiov
01 aTrocrToXoi Tov Kvoiov Ii]&lt;Tou T^? ava&lt;TTacrea&gt;y (iv.
31-33).

7. Because of this grand spirit of self-sacrifice no
one lacked anything ; the appalling episode of Ananias
and Sapphira ; the great fear of the whole Church l
because of the apostolic power of St. Peter (iv. 34
v. 11).

8. Many signs and wonders are now wrought by the
Apostles 1 hands among the people (Xao? in contrast
with KK\t]cria) ; they were all together in Solomon s
Porch ; the people hold them in high honour and
reverence ; their number increases ; St. Peter performs
many miracles of healing; even from the towns outside
Jerusalem many sick folk and those possessed with
daemons were brought to him (v. 12-16).

Here we have a narrative marked by consistency
and logical connection in the succession of events. 2
If we now turn to chaps, ii. and v. 1742, we read
as follows:

1. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in visible
form in the morning [where ? in what connection or
for what reason ? Is it because the day of Pentecost
was being fulfilled ?] ; immediate result : \a\civ
erepaiy yXwva-aK;, so as to be understood by all (ii.
1-13).

1 Here the word tKK\rjffla makes its first appearance quite abruptly.

2 It is noteworthy that in these passages our Lord is four times
called 6 TTCUJ Oeov. It is possible to eliminate from this connection
the story of Ananias and Sapphira ; whether it ought to be elimi
nated is a question which, in my opinion, cannot be decided. As an
especially appalling instance of apostolic power it is quite in place
in l he context.

182 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

2. A great missionary sermon of St. Peter on the
occasion of the outpouring of the Spirit which had
been manifested in the fiery tongues and in the miracle
by which those who heard understood what was said
(ii. 1436). St. Peter in his sermon presupposes that
this outpouring was accompanied by " Tepara" of
which nothing is said in the narrative.

3. The extraordinary success (about 3000 con
versions) of the miracle and the sermon (ii. 37-41) ;
further result : they continue in the doctrine of the
Apostles and in the fellowship, in the breaking of
bread and in the prayers; fear came upon every
soul ; the Apostles work great miracles ; all that
believed were always together and had all things
common ; they were daily together in the Temple,
and also in their own homes they held their sacred
feasts in gladness and singleness of heart, having
favour with all the people (ii. 42-47).

4. The Apostles are thrown into prison by the
Jewish authorities [the Sadducees are specially men
tioned], but are set at liberty by an angel who directs
them to go into the Temple and to preach there to
all the people; this they do (v. 17-21 a ).

5. The Jewish authorities, who wish to condemn
them, in vain seek for them in the prison ; being, how
ever, informed that the Apostles were teaching in the
Temple, they command that they should be brought
before them (" not with violence ; for they feared the
people ") and forbid them * to preach the Gospel.

1 Here St. Luke expressly introduces the prohibition as a reminis
cence of an earlier one thus as a second prohibition because he
had already narrated it once before.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 183

The protest of St. Peter (" We must obey God rather
than men "). The purpose of the Council to con
demn the Apostles to death is changed by a speech
of Gamaliel. The scourging and release of the
Apostles (v. 21 a -41).

6. The Apostles continue their teaching in the
Temple and at home (v. 4#).

It is, in my opinion, so clear that we have here a
second narrative of the same events, that one can
only wonder that the knowledge that this is so has
not long ago become common property. The corre
spondence becomes still more striking if we add to
the first account (A) the story from the Jerusalem-
Caesarean section (vide supra) of the miraculous deliver
ance of St. Peter from prison by an angel during the
night (chap. xii. ; here also without the knowledge of
the guards) ; and this we ought to do (as Weiss also
thinks). The first recension (A) is, however, far
superior to the second recension (B). We may with
confidence leave it to the reader to test that this is so
both on the whole and in detail (the editorial touches
of St. Luke in both recensions do not often affect
the subject-matter, and can be easily discerned ; l St.
Luke did not perceive that he was reproducing two
traditions concerning the same occurrences, so that
the connection of events in the narrative which he
has compiled is altogether poor, illogical, and incred
ible). In B there is no clear motive given either for

1 St. Luke s character as an historian quite excludes the hypo
thesis that the recension B is a free invention of his ; there is,
however, no doubt that here as elsewhere he has added his own
touches.

184 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

the outpouring of the Spirit, 1 or for the presence of
the multitude, or for the fear of the people, or for the
fear of the authorities because of the people, or for
the imprisonment of the Apostles. In A everything
has hands and feet : the cure of the impotent man
this astonishing miracle that it had been granted
to St. Peter to perform explains everything : the
courage with which St. Peter openly and loudly pro
claimed Jesus in Solomon s Porch before the people
who were present, and were rushing together to him ;
the many conversions; the imprisonment of St. Peter
(and St. John ?) ; his open testimony before the Jewish
authorities on the following day ; his dismissal through
fear of the people. And now after the return of the
Apostle the enthusiasm of the first believers (the
5000, i.e. probably the 500) arose into an ecstasy
which opened the way to the reception of the Spirit, i.e.
what then happened zvas the actual, the historical, Pente
cost. 2 And though there is no speaking with tongues
this at least is not mentioned what happened
then had the result upon which everything depended :
eXaXovv TOV \6yov TOV Oeov /xera Trapptjaria? and :
ovva/J-ei /JLeyaXrj ctTreSiSovv TO /mapTupiov oi aTro crToAot

TOV KVpLOV ItJCTOV T&gt;7? aVCHGT CUT (&lt;}.

After the appearance of the Risen Christ to St.
Peter and to the Twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5) the cure of
the lame man was the next great stirring event ; after
the two speeches in which St. Peter bore public testi-

1 Are the words : KO.I tv rip ffWTrXrjpovadai rrjc i]fj.^pav T^S irfvra.-
Ko&lt;TT7js (ii. 1) intended to supply the motive which is here wanting?
The correction in D seems to have such an intention.

2 And probably also the appearance of our Lord before the
brethren, more than 500 in number, of which St. Paul speaks.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 185

mony before the people and the Council and after
his own imprisonment and deliverance this miracle
resulted in the " Outpouring of the Spirit " (and the
birth of the Church into active life). That this
" Outpouring " should have shaken itself free from its
connection with this miracle and should have made
its appearance as an independent event is very intel
ligible, and indeed the whole description in B, in
every trait and every detail of the transformation, is
best explained as the next stage after A in the pro
cess of legendary development. Here again the proof
may with perfect confidence be left to the reader. It
is most noteworthy that in B St. Peter, in his dis
course, mentions repara, which were bound up with
the " Outpouring," though nothing had been said of
these in the foregoing narrative. In A, on the other
hand, we find the earthquake ! l

According to A on the night preceding the out
pouring of the Spirit St. Peter was cast into prison,
and on the next morning released by the religious
authorities ; according to B the Apostles were cast
into prison after the " Outpouring," but were released

1 By combination of the two accounts A and B concerning the
" Outpouring," taking A as our foundation, we arrive at the follow
ing historical picture : After the cure of the lame man, the public
witness of St. Peter (before the people and the Council) and his
suffering as a confessor, we learn that the resulting ecstasy of the
little company of believers was assisted and confirmed by an earth
quake. This created public amazement ; St. Peter then delivered
a discourse, explaining this " outpouring " as being also the initial
stage of the " Day of Judgment." By this the listeners were cut
to the heart ; and under this influence many joined the new com
munity. The great majority of them were Hellenists ; while the
natives of Jerusalem held themselves aloof.

186 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

during the first night by an angel. This release
by an angel (in reference to St. Peter) is in chap. xii.
rightly set at a much later time, and is recounted
with details which show that we have here the more
ancient stage in the development of the legend,
wherein are still preserved some genuinely historical
traits.

Seeing, therefore, that chaps, ii. and v. 17-42 bear
the same relationship to chap. xii. as to chaps, iii.
1 v. 16 it is natural to suppose that chap. xii. belongs
to iii. 1-v. 16. Chap, xii., however, is one of the
passages containing tradition connected with Jeru
salem and Caesarea. These passages (vide supra)
begin with the mission of St. Philip in Samaria, with
which the mission in the cities on the coast is con
nected. But we notice that the section iii. 1 v. 16
concludes with an outlook towards the irepi^ iroXei?
\epovara\t ]iJL. The missions we have mentioned would
therefore follow in very good connection with this sec
tion. The source must naturally have contained a short
introductory description of St. Philip and of his ap
pearance on the scene of action ; but the introduction
which we now read in the Acts the election of the
Seven, among whom St. Philip is only named, nothing
more being said about him is quite out of connec
tion here and belongs (vide supra) to the Antiochean
source which knows St. Philip only as a deacon, and
in which St. Stephen alone appears as an evangelist.
Here, however, St. Philip appears as a missionary.
There is no doubt, therefore, that an hiatus lies
between the mention of St. Philip in vi. 5 and
the narratives concerning him in viii. 5 ff. This

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 187

hiatus is explained most simply by the results of our
analysis of the sources: the account in vi. 5 belongs
to the Antiochean record, while the accounts in viii.
5 ff. belong to the tradition connected with both
Jerusalem and Caesarea. 1 It is accordingly probable
that the sections iii. 1-v. 16 and viii. 5-40 ; ix. 29
xi. 18 and xii. 1-24 belong together, that they
form to a certain extent a homogeneous whole, and
that they may be described on the one hand as tradi
tion connected with both Jerusalem and Caesarea,
and on the other hand as tradition relating both to
St. Peter and St. Philip. Surveying them we find
before us a collection of traditions which is tolerably
homogeneous, and which though far from being so
connected and logically consistent as the Antiochean
source, nevertheless displays certain common charac
teristics and a distinct connection in the events it
records. This compilation concludes with the
Herodian Persecution, the death of St. James, the

1 So far as viii. 5 ff. is concerned it must remain quite an open
question whether the Philip here is the Apostle or the Evangelist.
The question is first settled in xxi. 8. The very attractive hypothesis
of the identity of the two Philips, for which support might easily be
derived from later tradition, indeed seemingly also from the gospel
of St. John, breaks down at this passage belonging to the we-sec-
tions. The theory that there never was a Philip among the Twelve,
but that the name of the Evangelist found its way into the list of the
Apostles, so that he was numbered as one of the Twelve, presup
poses a mistrust of this list which I cannot share, and which seems
to me quite unjustifiable. The name " Philip " was very common,
and the confusion of the two Philips in the second century was not
only suggested by the name and the missionary activity of the
Evangelist, but also by the highly probable fact that the Evangelist
had been a personal disciple of our Lord ; for we may well assume
that all the " Seven" were once personal disciples of our Lord.

188 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

miraculous release of St. Peter, who now leaves
Jerusalem (xii. 17 : e^VAOoov Tropev8ij et? eTepov
roVov), and the death of the persecutor Herod in
Cccsarea. This source thus comprises the first twelve
years of the history of the Church of Jerusalem and
the fundamentally important missions of St. Peter
and St. Philip.

Herewith the analysis of sources as regards the
first half of the Acts is carried as far as, in my
opinion, it can be carried ; l let me once again cursorily
summarise its results :

Chap. ii. llecension B of the history of the out
pouring of the Holy Spirit and its conse
quences.

Chaps, iii. 1 v. 16. Recension A of the more
intelligible history of the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit and its consequences (the Jeru-
salem-Caesarean or, in other words, Petro-
Philippine source).

Chap. v. 17-42. Continuation of B.

Chaps, vi. 1 viii. 4. The Jerusalem- Antiochean
source (with at the end an interpolated re
ference to St. Paul).

Chap. viii. 540. Continuation of A.

Chap. ix. 1 30(?). A passage concerning the

1 I have left chap. i. on one side. The former of its two divisions,
including the introduction and the account of the Ascension, is
probably the latest tradition in the Acts, and has been inserted by
St. Luke on the authority of a legend of very advanced develop
ment. Whether the second part, recounting the completion of the
apostolic college, belongs as an introduction to chap, ii., or to the
traditions of iii. 1 ff., or is a quite independent piece of tradition,
is a question which, in my opinion, cannot be settled.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 189

conversion of St. Paul interpolated from a

separate source.

Chaps, ix. 31 xi. 18. Continuation of A.
Chap. xi. 1930. Continuation of the Jerusalem-

Antiochcan source.

Chap. xii. 123. Continuation of A.
Chaps, xii. 25-xv. 35. Continuation of the Jeru-

salem-Antiochean source. 1

This analysis of sources first makes it possible to
enter upon a thoroughly scientific criticism of the
traditions of the first half of the Acts, in so far as
such criticism is at all possible ; for almost the only
information which here presents itself for comparison
is aflbrded by the epistles of St. Paul, though after
all this is not so scanty as is sometimes supposed
(vide infra). It is, however, more important for us
to keep in view the fact that these traditions were
actually compiled by St. Luke, the companion of St.
Paul, and in face of this fact not to throw to the
winds the general axioms of historical criticism.

Taking first the body of tradition which we have
called A, we have already pointed out the logical
sequence and the trustworthiness of the narrative in
the passage iii. 1 v. 16 so far as the leading features are
concerned. Also on pages 154 f. attention has been
drawn to the fact that even the story of Ananias and
Sapphira in its main outline need not be a fable of late
invention. Of course what is given us even here is

1 No notice is here taken of the few passages which have been
touched up by St. Luke, or which have been transferred from one
body of tradition to another in order to bind these together ; we at
once are lost in uncertainty if we try to explain every detail.

190 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

never tradition absolutely primitive and unaffected by
legend, it is rather historical tradition handed down by
enthusiasts. This is also shown in the description of
St. Philip as the great wonder-worker (viii. 6, 7), and
in the supernatural colouring given to the accounts
of his and St. Peter s actions throughout the mission.
But, on the other hand, we ought not to forget the
historical excellences of these sections. It has been
the greatest mistake of modern criticism that it has
suspected all sorts of things in the story of the rela
tions between St. Peter, St. Philip, and Simon Magus,
and has read its boldest surmises into this story,
while it has overlooked the relative simplicity of the
tale as here told, and the complete absence in the
narrative of any hint of the importance which Simon
Magus and the Simonians are supposed to have gained
later in the history of the Church. Again, certain
as it is that the story of Cornelius is thickly overlaid
with the colouring of supernatural legend, this story
nevertheless contains in its principal features, and in
several secondary traits, history that could not have
been invented ; and in that it represents St. Peter as,
at first, drawing no further practical conclusion from
the baptism of Cornelius, it keeps within the sphere
of the probable and we must therefore conclude of
the historical. 1 Lastly, in the concluding section, the
manner of the release of St. Peter presents a difficulty
and yet the " angel " could have been invented on

1 St. Luke plainly enough gives us to understand that St. Peter
did not understand the general intention of the Divine vision vouch
safed to him, as related in the story of Cornelius ; and that it was
necessary for the mission to be set on foot by others before he could
be brought to the right way of thinking.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 191

the very next day (even the first listeners could have
invented it, vide xii. 15 ; 6 ayyeXo? &lt;TTIV aJrou) ;
apart from this many secondary traits, having all the
characteristics of authenticity, give to the greater part
of the story an appearance of probability and trust
worthiness. 1

Here, however, we receive a hint as to the origin
of these traditions. If we note that the horizon of
this source includes both Jerusalem and Casarea, and
that St. Philip and no other, so far as we are told
in the book belonged to the churches of both Jerusalem
and Ctesarea, and that St. Luke has not only expressly
recorded St. Philip s migration to Caesarea (ix. 40),
but has also told us that he himself met him there
and stayed with him (xxi. 8f.) for a fairly long time
(perhaps a week) ; if we further consider that though
many Christians preached the Gospel in the Trepij~
Tro Aet? lepova-aXrj/uL, yet the Acts only records the
mission of St. Philip together with that of St. Peter ;

1 The fact that, according to chap, xii., St. Peter (and the
Apostles) definitely vanish from the scene is an additional proof
that with chap. xii. this source comes to an end, and that we now
pass over to another source (namely, the Antiochean). He who
writes : " Peter departed to another place," shows that he intends
to let this person drop out of his narrative. The fact that St. Peter
ngain appears abruptly and that in Jerusalem in chap. xv. seems
necessarily to point to the use of another source, and to a certain
carelessness on the part of the editor. This, however, makes it
probable that at least one written source lay before St. Luke.
Wellhausen remarks (Nachrichtcn d. k. Gcstllsch. d. W. z. Gottingen,
1907, s. 9, n. 1) : "We may conjecture that eh Irtpov r&irov is a
correction of St. Luke perhaps for Antioch ; for the name of this
city could not be left standing if xv. l-3i was to follow." The con
jecture is very daring; for why could not St. Luke have mentioned
the return of St. Peter to Jerusalem before chap. xv. ?

192 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

if, moreover, we take into account those peculiar traits
in the character of St. Philip which remind us of the
" Christian Scientist " (traits which were inherited by
his daughters), and compare therewith the super
natural colouring of this source, and if we lastly con
sider that St. Luke himself was a Christian Scientist,
and that therefore this man of the Primitive Com
munity must have appeared to him specially worthy
of reverential trust if we take all these facts into
consideration it is surely not too bold an hypothesis
to suppose that the body of tradition we have called
A was derived from St. Philip, or from him and his
daughters. 1 Together with them we may and indeed
must also think of St. Mark and Silas ; for they
were both natives of Jerusalem, and St. Luke for a
time lived and perhaps worked with both of them.
It is also strongly in favour of St. Mark that St.
Luke has taken his work as the basis of his own
gospel ; and, in fact, the story of the miraculous
release of St. Peter from prison (chap, xii.) in its

1 The mention of the daughters in xxi. 9 is very remarkable.
Papias expressly tells us (Eus., Hist, Eccl. III. 39, 9) that they
transmitted traditions connected with the Gospel history among others
a story of one tcho was raised from the dead. " A " also contains an in
stance of raising from the dead (ix. 36 jf.) ; such fanciful tales are,
however, very rare in the most ancient tradition ; St. Paul says
nothing about them. St. Luke may well have again met with these
daughters in Asia, and have then first heard of these accounts (vide
" Luke the Physician," pp. I53ff.). Besides, it must be remembered
that St. Luke must have seen St. Philip himself a second time,
namely, in the days before his voyage with St. Paul from Crcsarea
to Rome. We do not know how long during that visit he was in
touch with St. Philip, the most notable member of the Church
in Csesarea ; it may have been days, but it may also have been
months.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 193

details (the house of St. Mark s mother, the assembly
there, Rhoda the maid-servant) looks quite like an
account derived from St. Mark, and probably is so, or
rather information derived from St. Mark has found
its way into the story. " A " is not so strictly homo
geneous as to prevent us from supposing that a second
or even a third source has been used in it. But apart
from this passage, nothing can be found in A which
can be ascribed to St. Mark with greater probability
than to St. Philip ; indeed there is absolutely no other
detail of the source which points at all to St. Mark.
The same also holds good of Silas. Naturally St.
Luke also received from him information concerning
Jerusalem, but A in its essential character is bound
up not only with Jerusalem, but also with Samaria
and Caesarea. We are accordingly left only with St.
Philip. 1 But it may now be objected if this source
depends upon St. Philip, and if, moreover, he and
his Samaritan mission may have originally stood in
some kind of opposition to St. Peter and his mission
in Jerusalem and Judaea, is it not strange that in
one and the same source St. Philip and St. Peter
appear in such peaceful proximity ? We may answer
that the story of the mission of St. Philip, at all
events, does not belong to the Jerusalem-Antiochean
source, and that at a later time even St. Philip him
self would have felt that any trace of opposition
between himself and St. Peter had been smoothed

1 I have already shown in " Luke the Physician," pp. 153 ff. ,
and I will not here enlarge upon the point, that the investigation of
the sources of the gospel of St. Luke points to a special source con
nected with Jerusalem which has a certain relationship with A of
the Acts.

194 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

away. Only we must not suppose that the Samaritan
mission met at once with the approbation of St. Peter
and the Apostles (viii. 14 j^*.); some considerable time
may well have elapsed in the meantime. This, more
over, seems to be implied by the text itself; the
Apostles only approve after fj Za^a^o/a SeSeKTai rov
\6yov TOV Oeov. But even if this interpretation of
the passage is not accepted, we must recollect that
little dependence can be placed upon the chronology
of the first half of the Acts. It is certain that St.
Peter at a relatively early date preached the Gospel
in the districts on the coast, and in after times we
know that this was reckoned to him for righteousness
by those of more liberal opinions ; why not also by
St. Philip ?

As for B the unfavourable opinion which has
been above passed upon this recension may be har
dened into the critical verdict that, apart from
some few details, as compared with A it is worthless :
where it is trustworthy in its record the order of
events is confused, it combines things that have no
real connection with one another, it omits what is
important, it is devoid of all sense of historical de
velopment. It gives a much later and more impres
sive representation of events, and for this very reason
it met with acceptance. It is, however, correct in
recording that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was
manifested in the " speaking with tongues." Whether
the exaggeration of this speaking with tongues into
a speaking in foreign tongues or into a miracle of
hearing though the transformation is of course not
complete is due to the source itself, or first to

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 195

St. Luke, is a question which cannot be definitely
settled. The former alternative is to me the more
probable. At all events the outlook upon the Gentile
world again, of course, not logically and courageously
developed must have been present in the source ;
for therein lies the point of the whole narrative ;
though at the same time we must make the reserva
tion that St. Luke himself has drawn up the list of
nations according to his own discretion. It is, on
the other hand, very remarkable that in this account
the results of the " Outpouring " extend not to the
natives of Jerusalem but to the Jews of the Dispersion.
In this point we note its relationship with the Antio-
chean source. Unfortunately there is no evidence
that would help us to discover the person upon whose
authority this account rests. It probably first ap
peared after the Gospel had been preached in the
Empire. It, however, certainly proceeded from Jeru
salem or Palestine ; and we may also suitably connect
with it the account of the Ascension (i. 114) ; for
we may safely assume in St. Luke so much critical
sagacity as would prevent him from accepting such
stories concerning Jerusalem on foreign testimony
when he had so many opportunities of communication
with Palestinian Christians. In regard to the account
of the Ascension, it has been already shown above (pp.
155^ .) that the legend originated in Palestine, though
not perhaps until after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Passing now to the Antiochean source, we may assign
to it a high historical value ; but here distinctions
must be made. As far as chap. xiii. 4 inclusive it lays
itself open to depreciatory criticism in a few details

196 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

which can be easily recognised as editorial touches.
From this source alone we learn of the important
dispute between the " Hebrews " and the " Hellenists "
in the Church of Jerusalem, 1 of the election of the
" Seven " a second group of apostles which arose
from this dispute ; and above all, we learn that St.
Stephen and his following taught in Jerusalem a
peculiar " Paulinism before Paul," that the Twelve
by no means thoroughly acquiesced in this doctrine
for they were not affected by the persecution concern
ing Stephen and that this teaching led up to a
mission to the Gentiles before the ministry of St.
Paul. 2 If St. Stephen taught that Jesus would not
only destroy the Temple but would also abrogate the
e 6tj a. TrapeScoxev q/u.tt&gt; McoL- o-^?, it is at once intelligible
that some of his followers should have preached the
Gospel directly to the Gentiles in Antioch. The
source perhaps contained more than St. Luke took
from it, as has been already pointed out in the case
of the story of St. Stephen, and is also suggested by
other passages. For example, the narrative of xi.
1930 quite gives the impression of an extract from
a fuller account. 3 There is difficulty, as is well

1 The mention of the Hellenists in ix. 29 probably belongs to the
editorial touches of St. Luke, and is an imitation of vi. 9.

2 Wellhausen also (loc. cit., s. 9 /., 11 /.) allows this. As he rightly
remarks, St. Matt. x. 5 protests against this mission.

3 So also Wellhausen (loc. cit., s. 1 ff.). But seeing that he with
out just reason throws doubt upon the homogeneity of the source
here, and thinks himself justified in a criticism so incisive as to
lead him to assert that St. Barnabas in all likelihood himself be
longed to the fugitive Hellenists, that the representation of him as
"the inspector from Jerusalem" is due to tendency, that the
Hellenists on principle would have confined their mission simply to

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 197

known, in the narrative of the journey of St. Paul
and St. Barnabas with an offering for Jerusalem
(xi. 30 b ; xii. 25). I allow that the narrative does
not appear to be absolutely excluded by Gal. ii. 1 (Sia
CTUIV trd\iv avej3r]v). 1 If, however, this

the Jews, and that St. Peter is represented as the apostle to the
Gentiles I find it impossible to follow him. Again I cannot accept
his other objections that " the people of Jerusalem suffer from a
famine that had been merely prophesied," and that the same cause
moves the people of Antioch to help them, further that the delegates
from Jerusalem were not prophets but other folk. All these objec
tions are disposed of partly by reference to the brevity of the
narrative, partly by the fact that they do not rest upon sufficient
evidence.

i The two journeys to Jerusalem recounted in Gal. i.-ii. are
characterised as follows : 6.vfj\6ov laropfiaai KT)&lt;t&gt;8j&gt; TrdXtv fotfiyv
KO.I &vt0t(j.T)i&gt; avrou (the Christians of Jerusalem) rb ei/ayyAioi 3
Krjpi ffffu Iv TO?S tOveffiv. We may say that he does not count the
journeys he actually took, but only those journeys that had any
thing to do with his relations with St. Peter and the rest or with
his gospel. So we may decide, if hard pressed, nor do I wish to
maintain more than this. The identification of the journey of
Gal. ii. with" that of Acts xi. 30 b , commended by Ramsay and by
others before him, that is, the reduction of the two journeys of St.
Paul and St. Barnabas recorded in the Acts to one which took place
before the first missionary journey, I regard as an hypothesis
attractive but difficult to establish. Wellbausen has lately (loc. cit.,
s. If.) again given it his sanction, but the way in which he thinks
himself bound to criticise the stories of the Acts and to throw them
into new combinations makes it scarcely possible to come to close
quarters with him. It seems to be in favour of the identification
of the journeys (that is, of the transference of xv. 1 ff. to the time
of xi. 30) that xv. 1 ff. (Gal. i. 21) ia concerned only with the Gentile
Christians of Syria and Cilicia, while one would expect that the
Gentile Christians in Lycaonia (the district passed through in the
Bo-called first missionary journey) would have been also mentioned.
But the question here in the first instance concerns an acute " orcLm
KO.I f7jr77&lt;ns OVK 6X1777 " which had broken out in Antioch (and there
fore also affected the regions of Syria and Cilicia connected with

198 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

detail is unhistorical it only follows that the Antio-
chean source has erred for once ; and yet even in
this case it is left open to us to suppose that the
whole account of this journey does not belong to the
Antiochean source, but has been inserted by St. Luke
on mistaken information. It can be omitted without
difficulty.

The account of the so-called first missionary journey
belonging to this source is not so vivid in its style nor
so trustworthy (vide supra, pp. 92^".) as the greater
part of the narrative in the second half of the Acts.
Here also St. Luke has evidently taken certain liber
ties. I conjecture that the source only gave the route
(without dates, which are almost entirely absent), and
that St. Luke taliter qualiter fashioned this into a
" history " in which the great interpolated discourse
at Antioch takes up more than a third part of the
space. He here gradually allows St. Barnabas to fall
into the background behind St. Paul in opposition
to the attitude of the source (vide supra}. If this
source originated in Antioch one understands why

that metropolis), and had been stirred up by unauthorised meddlers
from Jerusalem, not a general spontaneous effort to regulate the
whole relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It stands
to reason that the decision arrived at was afterwards of importance
for Gentile Christians in general (xxi. 25). Instead of pulling
St. Luke to pieces, one ought rather to recognise that here he
does not move in generalities, but has given a fairly detailed re
presentation. To bring the collection for the famine -stricken
Christians of Jerusalem (xi. 29 /. ; xii. 24) into connection with the
compact made in Gal. ii. 10 belongs to that class of combinations
which compromises historical criticism. The attractiveness of the
hypothesis lies in the fact that St. Peter is still in Jerusalem, while
according to chap. xii. he seems to have definitely left that city.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 199

in this section it only shows interest in leading
features.

It seems to me most important for the criticism of
chap. xv. 135 that the Antiochean origin of this
passage should be kept in view. If the tradition here
is Antiochean and from the words of verse 2 : yevo-
fj.evr)&lt;} $e o-rdVfco? /cat ^T/jcreeo? OVK oXiyqs TW YlavXa)
KOI Bapi dfia Trpos ai/roi/? as well as from Tiva? aXXov?
of verse 2, and yuera /ecu frepwv TroXXoov of verse 35,
it follows that the source knew more than St. Luke
tells us, and that it could only know this because it
was Antiochean everything at once explains itself.
There was no need to record what St. Paul and St.
Barnabas had said at Jerusalem. The whole interest
would be concentrated upon the attitude adopted by the
whole Church of Jerusalem, under the leadership of St.
Peter and St. James, towards those teachers of the Law,
who without authority (xv. 24 : 019 ov Sie&lt;rTiXd/uLe9a),
had come down to Antioch (xv. 1), and who belonged
to the party of Christian Pharisees in Jerusalem
(xv. 5). Neither does the passage on the whole give
any other information, and to try to coax more out of
it is quite inadmissible. It simply marks the result,
while defining the attitude of St. Peter and St. James
more clearly by a free reproduction of their speeches.
It is at the same time clearly shown that the stand
point of the former was somewhat different from that
of St. James. According to St. Luke both recall the
Divine leading given in the history of the centurion of
Caesarea those men of Cyprus and Cyrene who first
preached to the Gentiles in Antioch could not there
fore, in St. Luke s opinion, claim such Divine leading ;

200 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

but St. Peter then dwells upon the manifest inability
of even the Jews and Jewish Christians to bear the
yoke of the Law, and passes on to speak of the
grace of the Lord Jesus which brings redemption to
those who believe ; while St. James dwells upon the
fact that the Law is everywhere proclaimed in the
synagogues (and is accordingly assured of its position
of due respect within the ancient nation 1 ). 2

We shall return to the Apostolic Decree in Chapter
VI. It may therefore be set aside for the present.
And yet it is not possible to give a final decision as
to the date of the Antiochean source before this Decree
has been discussed. Neglecting it, however, for the
moment, we find in the source nothing that demands a
late date of composition, while the excellent accounts

1 The " synagogues " of xv. 21 can only mean purely Jewish
synagogues, not those in which Jews and Jewish Christians were
found together.

* So these words of somewhat doubtful significance are to be
understood. The other explanations (vide Wendt on this passage)
almost all include the Jewish Christians here, and regard the words
as a declaration of conditions to be imposed. They, however, read
into the text a significance which is quite foreign to it, and which
if it were intended must have been expressly stated. The opinions
delivered by St. Peter and St. James really complete one another ;
the former calls attention to the absolute impossibility of keeping
the Law, and points out that in consequence everything depends
upon faith in the grace of the Lord Jesus; St. James declares that
the Law still retains its inviolable character for the Jews, and that
thus its rights were preserved. St. James does not intend by his
words to commend the positive side of the so-called Apostolic
Decree, but, like St. Peter, merely its negative side (fj.rj irapevox^f iv).
What St. Peter says and what St. James says could also have been
said by St. Paul, for even according to his teaching the Jews were
still bound to keep the Law ; but it is important for the standpoint
of St. James that this is just the point which he emphasises.

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 201

concerning Jerusalem and St. Stephen, and the special
veneration shown to St. Barnabas, lead us to conclude
that we have here a writing of high antiquity. With
due precautions we may perhaps go one step further.
\Ve have described the source as " Antiochean." But
we may, indeed we must, also call it " Jerusalem-
Antiochean " ; for, as has been shown, the bond of
connection between Jerusalem and Antioch is in it
most carefully noted and recorded, and it includes
accounts concerning the primitive history of the Church
of Jerusalem which are quite unique, important,
and trustworthy, and even more detailed than those
concerning Antioch. It demands, therefore, as its
authority one to whom the connection between the two
Churches was a matter of special importance, to whose
heart Jerusalem and Antioch were equally dear, one
who knew the early history of the Church of Jerusalem,
and was moreover a convinced believer in, and him
self endowed with, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
Now we know that Silas came as an ambassador from
Jerusalem to Antioch, and stayed for a considerable
time in the latter tity, and that he then, starting from
Antioch, accompanied St. Paul in the so-called second
missionary journey during which he fell in with St.
Luke, and for a time worked together with him.
Nothing can be more probable than that St. Luke owes
these records concerning both Jerusalem and Antioch
to this prophet of Jerusalem who had lived in Antioch,
and who had gladly entered upon the mission to the
Gentles ; nothing at least can be said against such a
supposition. This does not yet amount to a proof;
but we may well venture the conjecture that the

202 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

authority of Silas is to be claimed for these accounts
concerning Jerusalem and Antioch.

We have now completed the analysis of the sources
of the Acts of the Apostles in their main outlines.
There still, however, remains the important question
whether the three sources of the first half of the Acts
were written sources either as a whole or in part,
or whether they simply depend upon oral tradition.
This question can only be dealt with in connection
with a discussion of the " discrepancies " of the Acts.
To these the next chapter is dedicated.

CHAFfER VI

INSTANCES OF INACCURACY AND OF DISCREPANCY - WRITTEN
OR ORAL SOURCES ? - CONCLUDING REMARKS CONCERN
ING THE VALUE OF THE SOURCES AND OF ST. LUKE
AS AN AUTHOR.

WHAT we include under the term instances of
inaccuracy and of discrepancy " in the Acts of the
Apostles will be learned from the following collection
of examples. We group them according to the sepa
rate bodies of tradition into which we have already
analysed the book, more especially in the preceding
chapter.

1, The We-sections.

We must here note that the jj/xef? has not in every
passage the same connotation. It is not always quite
certain what persons are included in the word.

xvi. 10. The "we" is, without any explanation,
abruptly introduced in e^n/o-ci/zev.

xvi. 10. Y MoKfTOHOl . . . evayye\lcracr6ai

xvi. 12, 18. The relation of wxe^oa? rivd? to

remains undefined.

xvi. 13, 16. It is not certain whether one or two
different visits to the Trpoa-ev^ i are intended.

xx. 7. The auTof? after ij/uctji/ is inexact, seeing

203

204 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that it refers to the Christians in Troas, while they
are also included in the foeis.

xx. 12. yyayov Se TOV Tratoa ^WVTO. ought to have
occurred earlier in the narrative, and in the following
words : KOI TrapeK\ri6r]crav ov /meTpicos there is a change
of subject.

xxi. 4. St. Paul does not attend to the prophetic-
revelation.

xxi. 8 ff. In Caesarea St. Philip is so important
to the writer that he forgets the church in that city ;
it is first mentioned afterwards in verses 12 and 16.

xxi. 10. Agabus is introduced as if he here
appeared in the book for the first time ; yet see
xi. 28.

xxi. 11. The prophecy afterwards meets with
only a general not a detailed fulfilment.

xxi. 16, 17. The reception in Mnason s house in
Jerusalem is recorded before the arrival in Jerusalem
(this has given rise to the correction in /3). Prolepsis.

xxvii. 2. Aristarchus is described as Ma/ce&lt;5&lt;wi&gt;
GecrcraXofi/ceJ?, although he had been already described
in xix. 20 as a Macedonian, and in xx. 4 as a native
of Thessalonica it seems thus to have been forgotten
that he had been mentioned before.

xxvii. 10. Here the construction with on abruptly
changes into the Ace. c. Inf.

xxvii. 12. " A.vevOerov $e TOV XiyueVo? connects with
verse 8, although verses 9-11 intervene (Wellhausen
explains verses 9-11 as an interpolation).

xxvii. 12. After the mention of the eKaToi&gt;Tapxr)$,
the Kv(3epvi }T&gt;]9 and the vavK\&gt;jpo$, it is strange that
oi TrXe/ofe? should occur. Who were they ?

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 205

xxvii. 21. Here the /xev is not followed by &lt;$ e.

xxvii. 21-26 (from TOTC onwards) ; xxvii. 31 ;
xxvii. 33-38 (from TrapcKaXei onwards) are explained
by Wellhausen as interpolations.

xxviii. 1, 2. It is somewhat inexact that the
clause : e-jreyvwuev on MeArn? fj vtjiro? KoXeiTai should
come before the meeting with the inhabitants is
mentioned. Prolepsis.

xxviii. 10. Again an instance of prolepsis. The
friendly offices of the Maltese at the time of embarka
tion are mentioned too soon, seeing that this embarka
tion did not take place until after three months.

xxviii. 14. Another instance of prolepsis. The
arrival in Rome is mentioned too soon ; it is not in
place until verse 16.

2. The second half of the book (omitting 1 the
We-sections).

xvi. 4. ra? TroXet? . . . TrapeSlSoarav aurof?.

xvi. 22. Why does not St. Paul now appeal to
his Roman citizenship ?

xvi. 23, 24. e/3aXoi/ ei? (pv\aKr ]v . . . e/3aXei&gt;
O.VTOU? etV Trjv ecrwTepav &lt;pv\aKijv the repetition here
is awkward.

xvi. 27. The jailor is about to kill himself,
although no one could accuse him of anything, and
although he could not yet have known whether the
prisoners had escaped or not.

xvi. 28. It is difficult to see how St. Paul could
have marked the purpose of the jailor, or how he could
have known that all the prisoners were still there.

206 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xvi. 29. am/era?, a strange change of subject.

xvi. 30. No motive is given for the jailor s rever
ence for his two prisoners, and no motive at all for
his appealing cry to them, seeing that he could not
have known that the miracle had been wrought on
their behalf.

xvi. 32. The abrupt appearance of the jailor s
family is unexplained.

xvi. 33. It seems strange that the baptism should
have taken place at once in the prison.

xvi. 35. No motive is given for the action of the
fTT partly oi. They issue a sudden command for the
release, though no hint is given that they were influ
enced by anything that had happened during the
night. The whole passage, verses 24-34 (inclusive),
looks like an interpolation.

xvi. 37. TTjOo? auTovs though the lictors did not
themselves go in to the prisoners but sent a message
by the jailor.

xvii. 3. Passage into oratio directa.

xvii. 5. Prolepsis. The house of Jason is men
tioned, though it is not until verse 7 that we learn
that Jason had received the missionaries into his house.

xvii. 9. Aa/3oWe? aireXvcrav change of subject.

xvii. 15. o&gt;? rd^ia-ra but St. Luke does not tell
us that the command was not carried out.

xvii. 18. oi Se is grammatically without antecedent.

xviii. 5. The connection of irvvei^eTO TU&gt; \oyu&gt;
with icaTfj\9ov 6 Te 2/Aa? KOI 6 Ti/zoOeo? is strange,
because the author does not fully explain.

xviii. 6. TTOpeua-0/u.cii is strange when followed by
verses If,

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 207

xviii. 8. This verse concerning Crispus breaks into
the context both in thought and in form, and there
fore seems out of place here.

xviii. 11. ev avTots is not quite correct.

xviii. 17. It is not clear who the Travres were (Jews ?
or Greeks ?), nor whether the Sosthenes so abruptly
introduced, and beaten without any given reason, was
a Christian or a Jew.

xviii. 18. It is not at once clear whether it was
St. Paul or Aquila who had taken the vow.

xviii. 22. It is not quite clear whether avafid?
implies the going up from the harbour into the city
of Caesarea or the going up to Jerusalem.

xviii. 22, 23. Here the brevity of the narrative is
strange.

xviii. 2428 looks like an episode that has been
interpolated.

xix. 1. We should expect ai&gt;e\6etv, not e\6elv
(Wellhausen).

xix. 3. The expression fianrTiQaOai etV TO ^Iwdvvov
ftaTTTicriJia. is a solecism which is only formally excus
able because of the preceding et&lt;? rt.

xix. 16. It is not till now that we learn that the
seven exorcists did not all participate here, and that
the occurrence took place in a house (the house is
described as if it had been already mentioned, so also
the dacmoniac himself). Yet it is possible that a/u.(p6-
repoi may be carelessly used for " several." The
whole episode is recorded as if it were only needful
to recall a well-known occurrence; the notoriety of
the event is indeed afterwards referred to in verse 17
and rendered comprehensible in verses 18 f.

208 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xix. 29. The Macedonians Gaius and Aristarchus
are introduced quite abruptly.

xix. 32 takes up the thread of verse 29, though
verses 30 and 31 intervene.

xix. 33. Alexander is abruptly introduced without
comment. We are left in darkness as to his person
ality and his intentions ; even the construction of e&lt;
Se TOV o^Aou &lt;Tuve/3i(3aa-av TOV AXe^avSpov is not at all
clear ; moreover, the purpose of the sudden interven
tion of the Jews is not obvious.

xix. 34. eiriyvovTes . . . KpaCovres. Anacoluthon.

xix. 37. It is doubtful who the ay^oe? OVTOL are.
Are they St. Paul and his companions ? Probably
Gaius and Aristarchus. What then is the intention
of the whole intervening episode with Alexander ?
Moreover, verse 38 has better connection with 36
than with 37 (Wellhausen).

xx. 16. It is not said whether St. Paul actually
arrived at Jerusalem for Pentecost.

xx. 19. What St. Paul recalls here is not covered
by the narrative in chap. xix.

xx. 23. Here also the summary statement gives
quite new information.

xx. 32. Here TW $vvafAevq&gt; either refers to TOJ
Kvpia&gt; instead of the nearer TO&gt; Xo-yw or the whole
phrase is incorrect as an epithet.

xxi. 20. a/coiVai/Te? eiTrav, here we expect St. James
to speak, but the words are put into the mouths of
St. James and the presbyters speaking together !

xxi. 27. The seven days are spoken of as if it had
been said before that seven days were still wanting
for the accomplishment of the vow.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 209

xxi. 27. fTreftdXav eV avrov ra? ^eipay. Prolepsis.

xxi. 34. /j.t] (WctyUeVov avrov yvwvai CKeXewev,
grammatically incorrect.

xxi. 36. TO TrXtjOo? TOV Xaov Kpdfyvre?, incorrect.

xxii. 6. Trep} fj-ea-tj/uL/Splav, wanting in the account
of chap. ix.

xxii. 9. A case of discrepancy with ix. 7 (though
it may at a pinch be smoothed away).

xxiii. 5. The words of St. Paul: OVK ySeiv ori
e(TT\v up-^iepevs are unintelligible.

xxiii. 111. The details of this story taken by
themselves and in conjunction with xxiii. 15 are some
what strange. Here, just as in the first half of the
book, St. Luke seems to have followed parallel
accounts which, because they differed from one an
other, he did not recognise as parallel accounts.

xxiii. 12. The general term 01 lovSaioi is still
more strange here than in xxii. 30.

xxiii. 16. St. Paul s sister s son is introduced as a
well-known character.

xxiii. 22. 6 iJ.lv ovv without a following Se.

xxiii. 22. Transition into oratio directa.

xxiii. 24. Transition into oratio indirecta.

xxiii. 25. ypd\lsas passing over verse 24 connects
directly with CITTCV in verse 23.

xxiii. 26. Now at the end we are first told the
name of the military tribune.

xxiii. 27. fjiaOitiv cm PoyMUOf ecrriv is either an
nstance of gross carelessness on the part of St. Luke,
or is written purposely : the tribune gives a repre
sentation of events which was false, but favourable to
u m self.

210 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xxiii. 30 b is not covered by the previous narrative.

xxiii. 33. arrives a strange change of subject.

xxiv. 5. e^jOoVrep anacoluthon ; it is followed
by no principal verb.

xxiv. 17 is not covered by the earlier narrative.

xxiv. 18. The syntax of the clause : rives e awo
TV/? Acr/a9 lovSaioi is incorrect.

xxiv. 22. It is very strange that here a more
accurate knowledge of the Christian movement is
ascribed to Felix (a.Kpij3e&lt;TTepov et&lt;5u&gt;? TO. irepl r^?
6$ov). Was it derived from his wife Drusilla ? Or
does ei$u&gt;s here mean " noting," and is aKpiftea-repov
to be understood as superlative ?

xxiv. 22 b . This promise is strangely never ful
filled.

xxiv. 23. KOI /u.r]&lt;$va KooXveiv strange change of
subject.

xxiv. 2427. St. Paul s situation as here described
is less favourable than we should have judged from
the preceding verses (22, 23), but there is no real dis
crepancy here.

xxv. 4. 6 JULCV ovv without a following $e.

xxv. 16. Festus does not give a correct report of
the wish of the Jewish authorities.

xxv. 21. T. $e IIcwAou eTriKaXea-a/mevov r&gt;ip&gt;]6i]vai
O.VTOV grammatically incorrect.

xxv. 24. TO TrXqOos evervyov incorrect.

xxvi. 4. No 8e follows the /j.ev.

xxvi. 14. Discrepancy with ix. 7 (eicrri iKeia-av).

xxvi. 16. In distinction from the previous accounts
St. Paul is here at once appointed a missionary to
the Gentiles.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 211

xxvi. 20. That St. Paul preached in Jerusalem
and in all Judaea is not recorded elsewhere in the
Acts.

xxviii. 17. Sea-/uuo9 e lepo(TO\v/UL(av TrapeSoOqv eiy
ra? xeipas T. Pco/xa/wf is very inaccurate, for he was
already in the power of the Romans when he was
bound in fetters ; verse 19 b is also inexact.

xxviii. 22. yueV without Se.

xxviii. 25 ff. The quotation from Isaiah does not
suit well the information given in verse 24.

3. Chapter i. and the source B (ii. ; v. 17-42).

i. 1. No TOV e SevTepov follows TOV fj.ev Trpurrov
\o i yov.

i. 2. The style here is confused.

i. 4. The construction by means of a relative
sentence passes over into a principal sentence.

i. 4-6. It is not clear where the summary ends
and the narrative of particular events begins (probably
already at verse 4).

i. 4. The oratio obliqua passes into oratio directa.

i. 6. It is not said where the disciples had come
together ; we do not learn this until verse 12. Neither
is it clear whether the meeting of verse 6 is identical
with that of verse 4.

i. 15. In verse 14 mention is made only of the
brethren of Jesus side by side with the Apostles and
the women. It is strange that now quite abruptly
a whole company of brethren is presupposed 120
persons.

i. 18. fjiev ovv without a following &lt;5e.

212 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

i. 17-20. Here it has been supposed that there is
confusion between the apostolic office of Judas and
the plot of land which he had purchased (Weiss) :
the eVauXty of verse 20 is supposed to refer to the
plot of land.

i. 22. The words ap^djuevo? to f]jj.u)v are subject to
exception both in form and meaning (Wellhausen) ;
Weiss extends this criticism also to verse 21 (from
ev TTO.VTI onwards).

i. 24. It is strange that all the brethren together
say what follows.

i. 26. fiera. TWV evSeKa airovToXuiv is strange
seeing that elsewhere in the book not much stress
is laid upon the number " twelve " of the Apostles.

ii. 1. It is not clear whether the day of Pentecost
itself is meant or only its approach.

ii. 1. o/xoy with TO avro is superfluous; we are
left in doubt where they were met together.

ii. 4 ff. It is doubtful whether a miracle of speech
or hearing is intended, or (verses 12, 13) simply ecstatic
speech (" speaking with tongues ").

ii. 4. Traj/re? in ii. 1 Trdvres means all the Chris
tians, so it must also here ; but already in ii. 7 only
the " Twelve " seem to be comprehended under wavrep,
and this seems to be confirmed by verses 14 and 15
(ovroi = oi evoeKo).

ii. 5 /. According to what is here said only the
Jews of the Dispersion living in Jerusalem seem to
have gathered together ; where then are the natives
of Jerusalem (yet see verse 14), and how came it that
this outpouring of the Spirit was noised abroad in the
city?

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 213

ii. 8. With T# iSia JtoXcrry the word signifying
the speakers " is wanting.

ii. 9. 01 KCLTOIKOVVTCS Ttjv Meao7roTa/x/ai/ is in form
discrepant with e&lt;V lepoua-aXq/u. KCLTOIKOVVTCS louSaiot.

ii. 9. lovSaiav is impossible.

ii. 11. KjO^re? KCU *Apa(3es comes very strangely
after lovocuoc re /cat Trpocr^XvTOi.

ii. 12 y. Trarrej erepoi careless.

ii. 14. This introduction of the sermon obliterates
the first impression that the effect of the outpouring
of the Spirit was confined to the Jews of the Disper
sion, i.e. to the Hellenists.

ii. 19 /. Yet no such repara had accompanied
the outpouring of the Spirit. On the other hand,
in the parallel account in iv. 31, it is related that an
earthquake accompanied the outpouring.

v. 21. The tautologous phrase: TO vwt&ptov KOU
Trairav T^V yepovo-iav TWV viwv lopco/A is strange.

v. 22 init. and v. 25 init. are so alike that verses
2224 seem like an interpolation an hypothesis to
which Weiss gives additional support by noticing
the double mention of the (rrpartiyos in verses 24
and 26.

v. 28. Weiss thinks that the two reproaches can
not stand side by side, and he ascribes the second to
the editor.

v. 36. The historical mistake in reference to
Theudas (also the uera rovrov in verse 37).

214 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

4. The Source A (iii. 1-v. 16 ; viii. 5-40 ; ix. 31-
xi. 18 ; xii. 1-23).

iii. 1 ff. The Healing of the lame man is narrated
as the first miracle (see especially verses 10 and 16) ;
but, according to ii. 43, many miracles had already
happened. The whole of ii. 4247 is proleptic when
compared with iii. 1 ff.

iii. 1 ff. St. John appears as a mere figurehead in
the whole narrative.

iii. 1. 6 Xao? . . . eK6a/u./3oi.

iv. 1. XaXouVrcoj avrwv but St. Peter alone had
been speaking.

iv. 13. Prolepsis ; for iv. 4 connects with iii. 26,
and iv. 5 with iv. 3 (aupiov corresponds to ea-Trepa and
avrwv to o Xao? in verse 2).

iv. 6. Anacoluthon ; Annas and the others appear
in the nominative in apposition to rou? ap^ovra? /c.r.X.

iv. 7. Weiss concludes from TOI/TO, from ouro? in
verse 9, from the presence of the people in verse 10,
from the very strange eTreyivoxTKov /c.r.X. in verse 13 C ,
from the similarly difficult verse 14, and from verse
22, that the scene was originally set in the Temple-
court, and that it was the editor who first transferred
it to the Sanhedrin.

iv. 10 C . Here OVTOS stands for the man who was
cured; in ll a oSro? represents Christ; this is very
strange.

iv. 12. ly/Act? a strange transition to the second
person.

iv. 16. The release of the Apostles is represented
as due to the fact that the miracle was notorious, and

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 215

could not be denied; in verse 21, however, it is re
presented as due to fear of the people. Therefore
Weiss regards iv. 1520 as an interpolation by the
editor.

iv. 19. Here St. Peter and St. John speak to
gether.

iv. 22. It is strange that we should only now
learn the age of the lame man ; seeing that cnroXv-
$eVre? of verse 23 connects with aireXiKrav of verse 21,
it would seem that verse 22 is interpolated.

iv. 24. 01 $ refers back to 01 idioi in verse 23,
passing over the ap-^iepeiy /cat Trpea-jBurepoi.

iv. 24^". The whole company speak together.

iv. 27. The expression : Aaot IcrpaijX is strange.

iv. 29. avru)t&gt; does not refer to Herod and Pilate,
but to the /SacriAetf K. ap-^ovTey of verse 26 ; thus
verses 27 and 28 look like an interpolation.

iv. 30. /ecu 0-rjju.eia /cat repara yivea-Qai does not
fit in well with what has been said before, and looks
like an interpolation.

iv. 33 connects closely with verse 31, so that 32
looks like an interpolation (introduction to the story
of Ananias), or, since verses 34 and 35 belong to verse
32, like the too early commencement of a new story.

iv. 3637 does not agree with verses 32, 34 f., seeing
that in the earlier passage the renunciation of posses
sions is represented as universal, while in iv. 3637 it
seems to be regarded as exceptional, and a particular
case is recorded as worthy of special praise (the same
idea lies behind v. 1 ff.\

v. 6. It is presupposed that the readers know who
the vewrepoi were (cf. i/ecw&lt;7/cot, verse 10).

216 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

v. 11. The word KK\rja-ia appears here for the
first time (in place of oi afieXcpoi).

v. 12. After ii. 43 this summary, written as if
the information were given for the first time, is very
strange.

v. 15 is closely bound up with verse 13, hence verse
14 looks like an interpolation that is out of place here.

v. 15. After the avrois of verse 13 it is strange
that St. Peter alone is spoken of here.

viii. 5. TroXi? T7? Sa/uojOe/a? . . . a Or off.

viii. 7. A gross and yet very natural case of ana-
coluthon : TTO\\OI Ttav eyovTUiv Trveujmara aKa.Oa.pTa

viii. 14. ^a/mapeia . . . TT^OO?

viii. 16. (SaTTTiiCeiv ei? TO ovo/j-a rou Kvptov
but in ii. 38 /BairTilCeiv eTrl ra&gt; oVo/xart I&gt;/a"ov

viii. 17. Strange change of subject (eAa/x/3avoj/).

viii. 26. a-yyeAo? Kvplov, but in verse 29 it is the
Spirit that speaks ; in viii. 39 the Spirit is called
Trvevp-a Kvpiov.

viii. 35. evayyeXifea-Oai avru&gt; TOV It]&lt;rovv, but in
viii. 25, 40 : evayyeXifea-Oai ra? /ca)/xa? (TroAet?).

ix. 31. The Church in Galilee appears here
abruptly.

x. 10. avrwv stands without reference.

x. 15. TTOL\IV K SevTepov pleonastic.

x. 19. Weiss thinks that StevOuju-ovjuLevov makes the
SitjTTopei of x. 17 superfluous, but it only carries on
the idea of the earlier word quite naturally.

x. 23. Weiss sees here an awkward interruption
in the flow of the narrative, but the verse is necessary
as a preparation for verse 45.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 217

x. 25-27. The cases of discrepancy which are
believed to have been discovered here disappear with
closer attention to the interpretation of the text (vide
Weiss)

x. 36. The connection with verse 35 is remark
ably loose.

x. 39* is a doublet of verse 41 and disturbs the
connection between verses 38 b and 39 b .

x. 42. TU&gt; \aw conflicts with i. 8, since it excludes
the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

x. 43 b . The infinite clause determines fjiapTupovaiv
in a way for which one is not prepared, and which
narrows the significance of the verb.

x. 45. CK TreptTo/mij? is superfluous, but its addition
is quite intelligible. Seeing that this verse refers
back to verse 23 b which, according to Weiss, belongs
to the editor, Weiss decides that x. 45 is not original,
and conjectures that Jewish Christians belonging to
Caesarea were originally intended here.

xi. 12. StaKpivavra, cf. x. 20 StaKpivo/uevo? the
difference, if there is any at all, is considered by Weiss
to be great enough to make it necessary to suppose
an editor, to whom he would attribute the small formal
differences both before and after this verse (between
the narrative of chapter x. and St. Peter s report of
the events). It is strange that the name of Cornelius
is not once mentioned in St. Peter s report.

xi. 12. We do not learn until now that the
brethren (vide x. 23, 45) were six in number, and
that they accompanied St. Peter to Jerusalem.

xi. 14 b is more than a free reproduction of the
narrative.

218 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xi. 15. Weiss finds a discrepancy between ev ru&gt;
ap^acrOai ywe AaAetV and ert XaAowro? rou Ileroou
(x. 44) ; I cannot allow that this is so.

xi. 15. Weiss writes : " e?r avrovs refers to the
avpe$ a.Kpo(3v&lt;TTiav l^oi/rey in verse 3, however im
possible this may be grammatically " ; but it really
refers to verse 14 (crv KOI TTO? 6 OIKOS crou), so that all
is in order.

xi. 17. Weiss here discovers a case of discrepancy
with x. 47, but I cannot see it.

xi. 18. Weiss raises the point that jmerdvoia is
never mentioned in chapter x. ; it was not, however,
necessary to mention it. In spite of this, in giving a
summary of the events of chapter x., it was not out
of place to speak of fj jmerdvoia ei$ ^wi]v.

xii. 3. fj&av 8e r/jmepai T. a^yfj.u&gt;v. A parenthesis ;
but ov Kal Trtdo-a? (verse 4) coming after o-vXXafietv
(verse 3) is tautologous ; it therefore appears that an
editor has been at work here.

xii. 6. ore e %/me\\ev Trpoayayetv after
avayayelv O.VTOV (verse 4) is tautologous, and ry
eKeivy of verse 6 b does not fit in well with 6 a . It
seems therefore that 6* originally followed verse 4,
and that the night in question was the first which
St. Peter spent in prison (Weiss), while the editor
treated it as the last night before the intended
execution.

xii. 17. Weiss thinks that the command to tell
the brethren is discrepant with the purport of verses
5 and 12 b .

xii. 17. y erepov TOTTOV very strange ; the
narrator must surely have known the place.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 219

5. The Jerusalem- Antiochean Source (vi. 1-
viii. 4 ; xi. 19-30 ; xii. 25 [xiii. l]-xv. 35).

vi. 1. Abrupt introduction of the Hellenists and
the Hebrews (ot /j.a6t]rat also appears here for the
first time).

vi. 1. Tr\riQvv6vTu&gt;v Ttav ju.a6t]Ta&gt;i , a very modest
way of speaking after the great numbers recorded in
chapters ii. v.

vi. 1. -77; SiaKOvia TJJ KaOtj/jLepii jj this regular
ministration to the needs of the poor is something
quite different from the community of goods spoken
of in chapters ii. v.

vi. 2. ol SwSeKa only here (yet see ii. 14).

vi. 2. The assemblage of the whole TrAJ;0o? (verse
5) seems still to imply only a moderate number.
Evidently the Apostles up to this time had also
ministered to the needs of the poor.

vi. 5. If viii. 5 ff- comes from the same source, it
cannot but seem strange that more is not said here
about St. Philip.

vi. 6 b . A very awkward change of subject.

vi. 7. The verse does not fit very well into the
context.

vi. 8. This second characterisation of St. Stephen
(vide verse 5) is strange, especially seeing that no
repara K. (rt]fj.eia are afterwards recorded in connection
with him.

vi. 9. It is doubtful how we are to distinguish,
or rather to arrange, the Hellenists here introduced
to our notice.

220 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

vi. 12 b . Weiss here supposes a change of subject,
but this is not quite certain.

vi. 12. e&lt;V TO crvveSpiov (vide verse 15) but verses
13 and 14 (6 TOTTO? oyro?), and vii. 54^., suggest
rather a public place (the Temple-court) and the
action of a riotous crowd. This is still further suggested
by the circumstance that, except in the conventional
verse 1 of chapter viii., there is no indication of a
judicial trial, and that the speech of St. Stephen does
not in the least begin as if it were a direct answer to
charges preferred in a court of law.

vi. 13y! is essentially a doublet to verse 11.

vii. 4. /j.Tu&gt;Ki(Ti&gt; a change of subject, which
vanishes if we delete 4 a as an interpolation.

vii. 7. Transition into the oratio directa.

vii. 8. eyewt]o-ev change of subject.

vii. 10. KarecTTtjcrev change of subject.

vii. 816 (incl.) is ascribed by Weiss to the editor.
He appeals to the superfluous and unsuitable character
of the details given here (compare, however, verse 17),
as well as to the harsh changes of subject and to what
seems at least to be a discrepancy between verses 5
and 16.

vii. 19. The construction of eKaxuxrev with rou
Troielv is almost intolerably harsh ; from here onward
to verse 23 (incl.) Weiss sees the hand of the editor ;
but his reasons are weak ; neither is it obvious how,
according to Weiss, Moses is in this case introduced.
He also sees the editor in verses 26, 36, and 37, but
again his reasons are weak.

vii. 21. eKTeQevTos avrou aj/e/Aaro O.VTOV incor
rect construction.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 221

vii. 51 f. The conclusion, with its indignant re
proaches, follows very abruptly ; we must suppose
that examples justifying these reproaches have been
omitted, and that something was said about our
Lord and His attitude towards the Temple. The
Vision of chap. vii. 56 also seems to demand this.

vii. 57 viii. 3. These seven verses have much in
them that is strange : (1) The information given about
Saul is scattered in three places (vii. 58; viii. 1, 3);
(2) the eXiOofioXovv of verse 58 is without an object, and
is repeated in verse 59 ; so that 58 b and the first two
words of verse 59 look like an interpolation, especially
as the /uLaprvpes of vi. 13 suddenly appear again in a
very disconcerting fashion, and now serve as the
executioners of St. Stephen ; (3) 59 a and 60 look like
a genuine doublet, of which the second member is
probably the interpolation ; (4) the second passage
concerning Saul (viii. 1*) is also probably interpolated,
since viii. l b connects excellently with vii. 60 or 59 ;
(5) Travre? . . . TrXrjv TWV a.7rocrTO\(av (viii. 1) cannot
be correct, and must belong to the editor ; for the
Hellenists (the followers of St. Stephen) were the only
persons affected, and the Apostles on the other hand
were not without a following. Lastly, this notice is
inconsistent with verse 2 ; for the avSpey
must surely have been Christians. The TraVre?
irdp*1(rav K.T.\. is thus intended to prepare for viii. 5.
Chap. viii. 3 is perhaps original ; Kara rovs OIKOV?
shows yet again that viii. 1 is an interpolation.

viii. 4. The source extends to SirjXOov (incl.), vide
xi. 19.

xi. 20, compared with xi. 19, is somewhat awk-

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

wardly expressed ; nothing more, however, is to be
said.

xi. 26 b . xprj/uaria-cu change of subject ; also the
clause depends not upon eyevero O.VTOIS, but only upon
eyevero ; neither does xi. 27 (ei/ raurat? r. rj/u.epai$)
refer to 26 b , but to 26* ; hence 26 b is possibly inter
polated.

xi. 30. Presbyters in Jerusalem are here first men
tioned without any introduction.

xiii. 2, 3. The subject of the verbs in the
passage from afyopio-are to cnreXvorai is not quite
certain.

xiii. 5. er^ov Se KOI ^wavv^v vTrtjpeTyv comes some
what late.

xiii. 8. It is noteworthy that a second name is
here given to the man.

xiii. 13. The abrupt introduction of " ot irepl
Ilat Aoi " (instead of Bapv. AC. IT.) loses its strange
ness if great stress is laid on the phrase, and 13* is
taken closely together with 13 b as cause and effect
(Weiss) : " Under the leading of St. Paul they came
to Perga ; St. Mark left them (in consequence) and
returned to Jerusalem. 1 " And yet this exegesis is
perhaps a little too ingenious !

xiv. 1. V T. arvvayuiyrfv T. *Iov8ai&lt;av pleonastic.

xiv. 7. KO.KCI evayyeXiYonevoi fi&lt;rav, namely in
Lystra, Derbe and the neighbouring districts hence
the story of the occurrence in Lystra acquires the
appearance of an appended anecdote, but there is
nothing really strange in its having been appended in
this way (vide supra, p. 94).

xiv. 8. Kd6t]To we must assume from verse 13

that the lame man was sitting outside the city (at
the gate of the city ?).

xiv. 14 f. St. Paul and St. Barnabas speak to
gether.

xiv. 22 b . Transition to the oratio directa; they
again speak together.

xv. 2. Tti^ct? aAXoi/f strange that they are not
named.

xv. 4 Jin. coincides with xiv. 27 b .

xv. 5. aurou? does not refer at all to the previous
avrwv ; we are compelled, therefore, to supply the
Gentiles " from the context; this is certainly awk
ward and yet tolerable. The remarks of Weiss on
verses 5 f. seem to me too ingenious. Neither can I
allow any weight to the objection he makes against
a&lt;^&gt; fjjjifpwv ap-^ai(av (verse 7). Note that St. Peter
speaks like one who at the time did not belong to
the community in Jerusalem.

xv. 12. 7rA/0o? . . . "JKOVOV.

xv. 12. It is true that nothing had previously
been said of the ?rX^Oo9, but verse 6 does not exclude
it (against Weiss), the less so since it is mentioned
in verse 4 (this holds good even if, as is probable,
verse 6 describes a different assembly from verse 4
\cf. verse 4 and verse 12]). Over and above this, in
verse 22 the aneXiprui is mentioned together with the
Apostles and prophets, and in verse 23 01 a&lt;5eX^)o/.

xv. 12, 13. I cannot see sufficient reason for the
objections which Weiss makes here.

xv. 14. It is strange that St. Peter is here called
Symeon."

xv. 23. aravres anacoluthon.

224 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xv. 23. Brethren, i.e. Churches, in Syria and Cilicia
have not been mentioned up to this point, also the
uyua? is covered only by xv. 1 (Antioch).

xv. 31. ayayvoWe? change of subject. The par
ticiple also refers to TrXJ/Oo?.

xv. 32 connects so closely with verse 30 that verse
31 looks like an interpolation (vide supra) ; however,
KOLL avrol . . . TrapeKoXecrav is against such a sup
position (the apposition begins after not before KOI

avTol, and is confined to the two words : Trpoffirou

" \
ovre?).

xv. 35. pierce /ecu erepcov 7roXX&lt;Si/ the narrator
thus knows more than he says, or does he only look
back to xiii. 1 ? This verse would not, however, cover
the word TroXXot.

xv. 36. TroXiv iracrav, ev a if.

xv. 40. It is most strange that here, in opposi
tion to verse 83, it is presupposed that Silas was in
Antioch.

6. Chap. ix. 1-30.

ix. 1. IT i connects with viii. 3.

ix. 2. We are not prepared by viii. 1 for Chris
tians in Damascus.

ix. 11. We learn only now (see verse 8) that St.
Paul had taken lodging with a man named Judas in
the street that was called " straight. 1 " Here also for
the first time we learn that St. Paul was a native of
Tarsus. I cannot see, with Weiss, that Saul is here
introduced as a person quite unknown to Ananias (so
that a discrepancy with verse 13 would result).

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 225

ix. 17. It is strange that Ananias knows about
the appearance of Christ to St. Paul.

ix. 26. It is now forgotten that it had been said
in viii. 1 that all the Christians except the Apostles
had fled from Jerusalem.

ix. 26. /mrj Tri(TTvovT&lt;i . . . e(f)o(3ovvTO strange, see
ing that he had now been in active work as a Chris
tian missionary for a considerable time (vide ix. 23).

From this survey we may confidently conclude that
the majority of the instances of inaccuracy and dis
crepancy in the Acts, seeing that they occur so
frequently, ought not to be regarded as indications
that sources are here used. They belong as much
to the style of St. Luke as other phenomena of
constant appearance in his work, and accordingly
contribute to strengthen the character of literary
unity in the book. For this very reason we have
here included instances where the question of sources
does not at all come into consideration. Let us
group together some examples of various character as
follows :

In A we read (iii. 11) 6 Xao? . . . e/cOa/x/Sof, (viii. 5)
9 Tqv TTO\IV eKiipv(T&lt;TV avTois, (viii. 14)
. . . Trpos auroi/?, but we also read in the
Antiochean source (xv. 12) eo- iyrja-ev TO TrXtjOo? KOI
yicovov, (xv. 30/.) TO Tr\tj6o$ . . . e^dptjcrav, (xv. 36)
/caret TroXiv Tra&lt;rav } ev af?, and in those sections of the
second part which certainly were not drawn from
any written source, (xvi. 4) Sie-Tropcvovro ray Tro Xet?
Trape$i&lt;$o&lt;rai&gt; aurof?, (xxi. 36) TO TrAJJflo? TOU Xaou
s, (xxv. 24) TO TrX^o? everv^ov yuot, see also

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

xix. 33, 34, lastly in the we-sections (xvi. 10) ei?
Ma/ce&lt;W/av . . . evayyeXiaaa-Qai O.VTOV?.

In B (i. 24) a prayer is recorded, and it is left
indefinite which of the company said it.

In A (iv. 1) we read \u\ovvrwv avTa&gt;v, when St.
Peter alone had spoken; (iv. 19) St. Peter and St.
John are represented as speaking the words which
follow, while it is clear that only one can have spoken
them ; lastly (iv. 24), the whole community is repre
sented as saying the long prayer that follows. More
over, in the Antiochean source (xiv. 14 f. and xiv.
22 b ), on two occasions words are placed in the mouths
of St. Barnabas and St. Paul speaking together, and
in the passages of the second part, which are certainly
drawn from no written source, we read (xxi. 20)
that St. James and the presbyters of Jerusalem speak
together the passage that follows that verse.

Instances of abrupt change of grammatical sub
ject, such as might lead us to conjecture the presence
of new sources that have been clumsily inserted into
the narrative, are found in all parts of the book.
In the we-sections (xx. 12) the two words "jyayov
and TrapeK\y /6i]crav standing almost side by side have
different subjects. In the passages of the second part,
which are certainly not drawn from any written
source, abrupt change of subject is found in xvi. 28,
29 ; xvii. 8, 9 ; xxiii. 32, 33 ; again in A in iv. 12 ;
iv. 24 ; v. 15 (where we should expect the Apostles in
place of St. Peter) ; viii. 17 ; lastly, in the Antiochean
source in vi. 6 ; vi. 12 [uncertain] ; vii. 4, 8, 10 ; xi.
26 b ; xv. 81.

It is altogether characteristic of St. Luke^s style

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 227

of narrative that details of a story are here and there
inserted later or again earlier than their proper place
(compare also St. Luke s gospel). It is specially
worthy of note that examples are to be found in the
we-sections. We are thereby warned, when we meet
with similar examples in other parts of the book, not
to fly at once to the hypothesis of interpolation and
the like (as critics have very often done). In the
we-sections (xx. 12) tjyayov Se rov iraiSa fooiTa. comes
too late, we hear (xxi. 12, 16) somewhat too late of
the Church in Caesarea, on the contrary Mnason (xxi.
16) is mentioned somewhat too early, xxviii. 1 is not
quite in its correct place before xxviii. 2, avdyea-Qat
in xxviii. 10 and e&lt;? Ttjv Pu&gt;p.rjv in xxviii. 14 come a
little too soon. Nor is it otherwise in the passages of
the second part of the book, which certainly are not
drawn from a written source. We learn a little too
late of St. Paul s Roman citizenship (xvi. 37), that
Jason entertained the Apostles (xvii. 7), that only two
of the seven brethren who were exorcists took part in
the exorcism (xix. 16) if the passage is to be so
understood of the plots of the Jews in Asia (xx. 19)
and of the prophecies that had been delivered con
cerning the coming troubles (xx. 23). The con
clusion of xxi. 27 (vide xxi. 30) seems to come too
soon. The name Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26) and the
preaching of St. Paul in Judaea (xxvi. 20) come later
than they ought. So also in B (i. 12) we are told
somewhat late that the scene was the Mount of Olives.
In A the age of the Lame Man (iv. 22), and again
the notice that there were six brethren (xi. 12) are
given rather late in the narrative. In the Antiochean

228 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

source we learn that St. Mark was a companion of
St. Paul (xiii. 5) later than we should have expected ;
again in xiv. 6 ff. Derbe KOI y Trepi-^wpo^ are mentioned
rather too soon, and the scene of action of xiv. 8 ff.
is only hinted at rather late in the story (xiv. 13).
Lastly, it is not until ix. 11 that we learn that
St. Paul put up at the house of a man named Judas
in Damascus.

Cases of anacoluihon and of change of construction
have also led to the supposition of written sources,
but scarcely ever is such an explanation justifiable,
for they are of frequent occurrence, and are indeed met
with in very many authors. In the we-sections (xxvii.
10) the construction with ori passes over into the
Ace. c. Inf. ; in the passages of the second part of the
book, which are certainly not drawn from a written
source, we find cases of transition into oratio directa
in xvii. 3 ; xxiii. 22 ; xxiii. 24 (transition into oratio
indirecta), and an instance of harsh anacoluthon in
xxiv. 5. In B (i. 4) the relative construction changes
into a principal sentence, and (i. 4 C ) the oratio obliqua
into oratio directa. In A we find in (iv. 6) an instance
of harsh anacoluthon, so also in viii. 7. In the Anti-
ochean source we find transition into oratio directa in
vii. 7, also in xiv. 22 b , and in xv. 23 an instance of
anacoluthon (ypa^avre^. 1 In very many passages we
find that by omitting one or several verses a better
connection is gained. But this is not surprising

1 The Gen. Abs. is incorrect both in vii. 21 (Antiochean source)
and in xxl 34. M^v without 5t (or dt in isolation) is found, if I
am right, only in the second part of the book and in the we-sections
(vide xxvii. 21 and xvii. 18 ; xxiii. 22 ; xxv. 4 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 22),
but this is unimportant.

INACCURACY AND DISCREPANCY 229

in the case of an author who has the somewhat care
less habit of referring to things that he should have
told us beforehand (vide supra). These are notably
the passages which critics have seized upon in order
to put in practice their well-known methods of ampu
tation. It is possible that in some cases interpolation
may be safely assumed, yet seeing that the phenomenon
in question is of such frequent occurrence, strong
reasons must exist to justify this critical operation.
In the we-sections we gain better connection if we
omit xxvii. 9-11. In the remaining passages of the
second part of the book the same is the case if we
omit xvi. 24-34; xviii. 8; xviii. 9, 10, 24-28; xix.
30, 31, 37. In B, i. 22 disturbs the connection ; again,
v. 22-24 is easily dispensed with. In A, iv. 13 is
awkward before iv. 4 ; one is tempted either to omit
the latter verse or to transform the former passage ;
also we could well dispense with iv. 1520, with iv. 22,
27-28, with the words /ecu 0-rj/u.eia KOI re para yivea-Qai
(iv. 30), with iv. 32, and with v. 14 and x. 39*. Lastly,
in the Antiochean source the connection seems to be
improved if we omit vii. 4 and other details of the
speech ; again, the passage vii. 57-viii. 3 looks like
an awkward shuffling together of two sources with
repetitions (here at all events it is difficult to avoid
the hypothesis that sources are really present); xi.
26 b gives the impression of unskilful attachment, and
xv. 31 of an awkward interpolation. And yet in
almost all these cases the reasons are not quite con
vincing, and there still remains the simpler hypo
thesis of a certain literary carelessness on the part of
St. Luke.

230 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

On the latter hypothesis we may most probably
explain those cases where St. Luke introduces persons
with a certain unconcern, or in other places seems to
forget that he has already introduced them. Instances
of the latter kind occur in the we-sections in xxi. 10 and
xxvii. 2. In the remaining passages of the second part
of the book we notice the abrupt appearance of the
household of the jailor (xvi. 32), of Jason (xvii. 5), of
Sosthenes (xviii. 17), of Gaius and Aristarchus (xix.
29), of Alexander (xix. 33), and of St. Paul s sister s
son (xxiii. 16). In A (ix. 31) the Church in Galilee,
of which nothing has been said hitherto, appears all at
once ; likewise (xii. 17) St. James, the Lord s brother.
In the Antiochean source (vi. 1) mention is abruptly
made of Hellenists and Hebrews in the Primitive
Community, of presbyters in Jerusalem (xi. 30), of
the brethren in Syria and Cilicia (xv. 23) ; from xiii.
1 we might suppose that as little had been previously
said about Barnabas and Saul as about the other
men mentioned in the verse. From ix. 2 we suddenly
discover that there were Christians in Damascus.

Instances of redundancy, of awkward repetition,
of silence upon important points, and of extra
ordinary brevity, can be adduced from different parts
of the book. Still greater is the number of instances
of ambiguity, of accounts and expressions whose signi
ficance is not quite clear, of trifling cases of literary
inaccuracy. They can be easily found in the lists
given above. Nor are there wanting instances of
discrepancy. Such (though insignificant) are to be
found in the three descriptions of the conversion of
St. Paul [they do not point to different sources], in

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 231

the letter of Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26 ff.} compared
with the previous narrative, in Festus report (xxv.
14 jf.), and finally in the last speech of St. Paul (in
Rome, xxviii. 17 /) Such are, moreover, to be found
in B (ii. 9 compared with ii. 5) ; in A (iv. 36y.
compared with iv. 32 ; and x. 42 compared with i. 8) ;
and lastly in the Antiochean source (xv. 40 compared
with xv. 33 ; concerning this instance of glaring dis
crepancy vide infra).

Under these circumstances we are compelled to
conclude that an analysis into written sources based
upon phenomena such as have been mentioned, or of
a similar kind, rests on insecure evidence, and is as a
rule unjustified. Taking into account the literary
temperament of St. Luke we are justified in proceed
ing to such analysis only when the concurrence of
many such phenomena compels us to adopt this pro
cedure. In such cases, however, the question always
arises whether we have to do with written sources
that have been unskilfully pieced together, or with
later interpolation* inserted either by the author him
self or by succeeding editors.

I. The we-sections have about them the character
of a diary, and it is therefore probable, if not certain,
that St. Luke employed in them notes which he
possessed. In these sections, however, there is no
certain indication of later interpolation. We may
naturally conjecture that xxi. 9 (TOVTU&gt; ^e %(rav Ovya-
Te ^oef Tecrcrayoe? TrapQevoi Trpo^revovcrai) is such an
interpolation, but we cannot here reach more than
a vague possibility. Wellhausen has, however, with
absolute confidence pronounced that xxvii. 911, 21

232 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

26, 31, 33-38 are interpolated. If this is really so,
then the whole account of the voyage contains no
reference to St. Paul and becomes an anonymous sea-
story, which St. Luke with great audacity has turned
into a story concerning St. Paul. Wellhausen has
not shrunk from drawing this conclusion, although
the sections in question are entirely Lukan in style,
and although the very questionable procedure thus
ascribed to St. Luke demands the strongest proof
before it can be accepted as probable. The indica
tions which have led the critic to omit these passages
as interpolations made by a third person, may have
justice done to them without recourse to such an
hypothesis of dynamite. We may well suppose that
for the description of the facts the author followed
either his own memory or as is more probable the
brief notes of his own diary. His accounts of St.
Paul s behaviour, and of what the Apostle said on
that occasion, would naturally be deduced from his
memory of the whole situation thus recalled to him,
with colouring from his own imagination, and would
necessarily have been inserted by him at suitable
points in the narrative which he composed from his
notes.

II. In reference to the second half of the book
(excluding the we-sections), I may say that the most
minute investigation has strengthened me afresh in
the conviction that on the whole, and in almost every
particular instance, it is most highly probable that
written sources were not used. 1 It is possible to

1 The tradition here is certainly not homogeneous ; in the last
quarter it is quite possible that doublets exist.

WIU1TEN OR ORAL SOURCES 233

regard xvi. 24-34 ; xviii. 8 ; xviii. 9, 10 ; xviii. 24-28,
and perhaps other passages here and there, as later
interpolations, and xviii. 517, 1923, and perhaps
other passages, as abbreviations of a more extensive
written source. But in xviii. 517 the former sup
position excludes the latter, and then the assumption
of later interpolation is by far the more probable,
although I cannot speak even in favour of this
hypothesis. The section xviii. 24-28, though it
certainly falls somewhat outside the scope of the
whole work, is yet to the point if one assumes that
St. Luke did not wish to pass over so important
a missionary as Apollos ; and even the best writer
could not have treated the ministry of this man
otherwise than as an episode, nor could he have
inserted it into the context at a more appropriate
place. The passage xix. 1923 is purposely brief
and sketchy, for St. Luke did not wish to say nothing
about St. Paul s return to Syria, and yet it did not
fit in well with the continuous onward movement of
his plot. As for the passage xvi. 24-34, 1 would here
admit the probability of later interpolation if the
verses were not so entirely Lukan in style, and if after
their removal a good and consistent story were left
behind. But it is scarcely credible that St. Luke
only narrated the imprisonment in Philippi in order
to show how proud St. Paul was of his Roman
citizenship.

Chapter xix. (the story of Demetrius) has been sub
jected by Wellhausen to criticism similar to that with
which he has treated chapter xxvii. (the account of the
voyage). Wellhausen here remarks ; " The original

234 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

source here simply described a rising in Ephesus
against the Jews. The author was neither Jew nor
Christian, but an impartial and superior observer, a
trifle malicious but quite sine ira et studio. St. Luke
has taken up the ready-made narrative and altered it
to suit his purpose, and yet with so little thorough
ness that it still shows itself everywhere." This is
the impression given by the passage after the omission
of verses 26 (the mention of St. Paul), 29 b , 30, 31,
and 37. Against such a theory we may set : (1) The
general consideration of the improbability that a
writer who, as even Wellhausen agrees, had access
to all kinds of trustworthy information about St.
Paul s long stay in Ephesus, should have been at
such a loss for material for his narrative as to seize
upon the description of a chance rising against the
Jews in Ephesus, and in a most audacious way to
paint St. Paul s portrait into it ; and (2) the special
consideration that we can scarcely believe that if the
writer had inserted the Apostle into the narrative he
would have handled him so discreetly i.e., would have
allowed him not to be affected by the persecution ! Who
can possibly believe that any one making up a story
would act thus ! Lastly verse 37 does not fall out
of the context (it connects quite well with TrpOTrere?
of verse 36), and therefore does not break the bond
between verses 36 and 38, rather this bond remains
intact even if one reads 37. It is true that the entry
of Alexander upon the scene remains obscure per
haps he was known to the first readers, perhaps we
must simply assume an ambiguity arising from an
effort to be brief, as in the case of Sosthenes (xviii.

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 235

17), and in not a few other cases. 1 On the whole
this section, which is in no way necessarily dependent
on a written source, bears the stamp of historical trust
worthiness just because it does not eulogise St. Paul
indeed, leaves him open to possible accusations of
want of courage. If, however, it is believed that
here and there in ihe second half of the book we
cannot dispense with the hypothesis of written sources,
it need not at all follow that the authorship of St.
Luke is excluded.

When attempting to answer the question whether
a temporary companion of St. Paul could have written
the second half of the book, we ought to keep all
trivial details out of sight. The few historical mis
takes in matters of detail, with which it is possible to
charge the author, are not at all to the point ; for
St. Luke has the right to make a mistake, especially
when he was not an eye-witness and was dependent upon
the reports of others. This, however, does not pre
vent people from confidently asserting that xxi. 20^.,
and the manner in which St. Paul is represented as
defending himself before the Jewish (and Gentile)
tribunal in the last chapters of the book, either exclude
a companion of St. Paul as author, or destroy all hope
that we shall ever arrive at an intelligible conception of
the actual course of events. 2 Here one representation

1 It has been already recognised by Storr that this straining after
brevity, leading here and there to ambiguity, is to be noticed in
the gospel as well as in the Acts.

* Vide. e.g. Julicher, Ncue Linicn, s. 60 : " If one of the most inti
mate companions of St. Paul tells us without the slightest hesitation
how St. Paul for the sake of peace wished by an elaborate act of
hypocrisy to convince the Jews that he still walked in the strict

236 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of the character of St. Paul stands opposed to another,
i.e. to the conception which we ourselves have formed
concerning St. Paul. Of course I do not mean that
St. Paul was capable of an act of hypocrisy, or that
St. Luke was capable of supposing that he was ; for
such an hypothesis is absolutely devoid of evidence.
According to my conception of the attitude of St.
Paul towards his nation and the Law, as I derive it
from his own letters, he, as a Jew by birth, would
not only be capable at any moment of performing
ceremonial and other Jewish functions with a good
conscience, but where Jewish opposition to the in
terests of the mission did not come into play he would
even perform such functions of his own free will and
from ingrained feelings of reverence. St. Paul not
only " became " a Jew to the Jews i.e. he not only
accommodated himself to them in matters of religious
practice, even in those wherein he had outgrown them
but he was and he remained a Jew. Nothing in his
letters prevents us from supposing that on his visits
to the Holy City he, like his Jewish Christian brethren
in Jerusalem, took part in the ceremonial worship of
the Temple. It must be allowed that the epistles to
the Romans and the Galatians might seem to suggest
that this was no longer possible for him, but they
need not be so interpreted ; and if we here receive

observance of the Law, and if this representation, given by a friend
who must have possessed true information concerning St. Paul s
attitude to the Law, deserves to be taken as evidence, then all
hopes that we shall ever arrive at an intelligible conception of the
actual history of the Primitive Church are reduced to zero, and we
are no longer safe in opposing any negation of things which have
even the best attestation."

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 237

additional information concerning the character and
practice of the Apostle no matter whether it is to
his credit or not l we have only to examine most
carefully whether this additional information is to
the point. In my opinion, it stands the test. More
over, in judging of St. Paul and his controversy with
the Jewish Christians, people are always overlook
ing the fact the liberty of all Christians was not
the subject of debate but the freedom of the Gentile
Christians from the yoke of the Law. There was no
question at all as to the practice of Jewish Christians
in reference to the Law, so far as their own persons
were concerned. As for the point of the defence
made before the Jewish tribunal, St. Luke may well
have added an accent or an emphasis which might
here so readily suggest itself to him. But the main
question, that St. Paul in his apology laid the
greatest stress upon his teaching in defence of the
Resurrection of the dead and of the Hope of Israel
(xxiii. 6^!; xxiv. 14^1; xxvi. Qf. ; xxviii. 17, 20;
see, however, on the other hand, xxvi. 23), and
that he also emphasised points wherein he agreed
with the Pharisees as opposed to the Sadducees, may
very well be historical. Perhaps St. Luke might
with advantage to St. Paul have shown a little finer
ethical feeling in his reproduction of these speeches,
but in my opinion it is only a question of nuance.
Accordingly there is no justification for the assertion

1 He loses somewhat in determination and in that consistency of
character wherein the eye is always sharply fixed upon a single
object, but he gains in freedom and in absolute devotion to the
interests of the mission.

238 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that because of these passages no companion of St.
Paul could have written the Acts. Those who ad
vance such an assertion make upon both author and
Apostle demands which are too rigorous, too heroic,
and too abstract.

Seeing that there is no proof that the second half
of the book depends upon written sources, we may
not forthwith build up the hypothesis of written
sources for the first half upon the basis of faults
similar to those which are found in the second half.

III. Passing to chapter i. and the " source " B (chap,
ii. ; v. 1742), we find that the instances of discrepancy
and unevenness are so numerous in the first verses of
the first chapter that we cannot well reject the hypo
thesis that they have been subjected to later correc
tion. We can, however, no longer ascertain the extent
of this correction, nor the wording of the original
text.

In the passage concerning the election of Matthias
(i. 1526) Weiss distinguishes a written source and
editorial touches due to St. Luke. He bases his con
clusions upon the different significance given to the
word f] eVafXt? (the Apostleship and the plot of ground
of Judas), as well as upon the grammatical and prac
tical difficulties that are to be found in the verses
21 b&gt; c , 22. The latter verses may be a later inter
polation though we are by no means forced to this
conclusion ; but the fact that eVaiAi? is used in a
double significance gives no ground for assuming a
written source. Double interpretations of a word are
out of place according to our ideas of exegesis, but
they were not so according to ancient ideas (espe-

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 239

cially where a sacred text was concerned) ; rather it was
thought that exegesis approached nearer to the truth,
and was the more edifying, the more things often
quite heterogeneous it read into the text and the
more it combined together things quite distinct from
one another.

Chapter ii. suffers much from obscurity. It is not at
all clear whether the event narrated took place on the
day of Pentecost or shortly beforehand, nor is it clear
where the scene of action is placed ; there is obscurity as
to the character of the miracle ; it is doubtful whether
the Spirit fell only upon the Apostles or upon all the
Christians ; it is not clear what became of the natives
of Jerusalem (only Jews of the Dispersion dwelling
in Jerusalem are spoken of; yet see verse 14); it is
not explained how the phenomenon could have been
brought to the notice of several thousand persons ; it
is not clear how St. Peter could speak of great cosmic
miracles, which certainly did not occur, nor are they
mentioned afterwards in the narrative many other
things also are obscure. But to attempt to clear away
these obscurities by assuming a written source, contain
ing none of these faults, which has been spoiled by the
correction of an editor the editor is always a simple
ton is a strange way out of the difficulty. It is ever
so much more natural to suppose that we have here
a worked-up narrative of a character that of itself
forbids close examination into the clearness and de-
finiteness of its details, because throughout one single
point is kept in view. The unprejudiced reader does
not notice these instances of obscurity on the other
hand, the essential point of the narrative stands out

240 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

quite clearly nor were they probably noticed by St.
Luke himself. 1 How much of this " working up " is
due to St. Luke, how much to the source itself, cannot
be determined. It was only natural that this first
occasion of " speaking with tongues " should be dis
tinguished from the later occasions in its miraculously
attractive power. The same considerations hold good
for the section v. 1742. We are tempted to regard
the unnecessary verses 2224 as an interpolation ; but
St. Luke could easily have been somewhat diffuse in
his narrative ; at all events the verses do not disturb
the context. Neither can I see why Weiss should
object to see the two reproaches of verse 28 standing
side by side. 2 Here also it is enough to say that
the ordinary style of narrative loves to heap up
motives, and is not concerned about their consistency
with one another. Accordingly B may pass as a
source, but not as a written source. It is, however,
worthy of note that this source is related to the
Jerusalem-Antiochean source, in so far as it seems
to have sprung from Hellenistic circles. In ii. 5 01 ev

1 It is characteristic of by no means few of his narratives that he
has not quite thoroughly thought out his situations, as so easily
happens when one recounts an event of which one has not been an
eye-witness. From the instances of unevenness and of slight discre
pancy that must thus arise, to conclude the existence of a written
source free from such faults, which has been spoiled by abbrevia
tion and interpolation, is not the first course that presents itself,
but rather the last resource. Many critics , however, prefer it because
they would sooner reckon with two rigid components than with a
single elastic one, although daily experience must teach them that
stories awkward in style and illogical in small points are everywhere
the rule.

2 Weiss judges similarly concerning the incompatibility of the
two motives given in iv. 16 and iv. 21.

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 241

KaroiKovvres ^lovSafot, avSpe? evXafieis O.TTO
eOvovs TWV VTTO TOV ovpavov alone appear (vide
), so that we are almost compelled to infer that
the story of Pentecost only concerns these Hellenists
to the exclusion of the natives of Jerusalem. Or is
this only due to the unskilfulness of the writer (see
verse 14) ?

Chapters i. and ii. and v. 17-42 are the passages
of the Acts which are furthest removed from actual
history. The account of the Ascension is quite useless
to the historian (vide sitpra, pp. 155 i ^ ? .), the account
of the election of an Apostle is at least beyond our
control, and the story of Pentecost is so worked up
that even St. Luke did not recognise it as a doublet
of iv. 31. Neither has he recognised that the story
of the imprisonment of the Apostles and their mira
culous release (v. 17 ff.} is a doublet of iv. 1 ff. and
xii., because here all the Apostles have taken the place
of St. Peter. Finally, our trust in this source is
not increased by its profession to know exactly what
happened in the Council (v. 34 ff., the speech of
Gamaliel). These passages taken together must be
accounted the latest and least credible in the book.

IV. In favour of the theory that A (the Jeru
salem -Caesarean source) was a written source, we may
advance the following considerations :

(1) The name of St. John seems to have been inter
polated into a text that had already taken form, in
which St. Peter alone was mentioned (chaps, iii. iv.).

(2) The scene of iv. 5 ff. seems to have been origin
ally set in the Court of the Temple, and to have been
first transferred to the Sanhedrin by St. Luke.

242 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(3) Elsewhere in this passage, so it seems, traces
are to be found of the work of an editor.

(4) Such traces are also found in the passage iv.
25-31.

(5) Chap. iv. 32 presents difficulties in both form
and subject-matter, and does not agree with iv. 36 f. ;
the same remark applies to iv. 34 f.

(6) Chap. v. 14 looks like an interpolation which
breaks the thread of the context.

(7) In chapter x. it seems possible to distinguish
the work of an editor and a fixed text which he
has worked up.

(8) The same seems to be the case in xii. 1-6.
Moreover, the brevity of the notice concerning the
martyrdom of St. James, and of the sufferings of
other Christians at the same time, is best explained
on the assumption that the source contained stories
about St. Peter, and accordingly only cursorily touched
upon other subjects, however important they may have
been (vide supra, p. 125).

(9) The expression xii. 17: TropevO&gt;] Y erepov
TOTTOV looks like the concluding sentence of a source,
in the reproduction of which the name of the place
has been suppressed.

I do not think that I need weary the reader with
a detailed investigation of these instances, seeing that
I have not yet been able to attain to a quite complete
and certain result, and have advanced only a little
beyond the position which I formulated in my earlier
work ("Luke the Physician," pp. 116/.).

For some passages of this body of tradition it is,
in my opinion, very probable that St. Luke depended

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 243

upon a written document. So, above all, for chaps,
iii., iv., and chap. xii. As for the former extensive
passage, it is here so obvious that the name of St.
John has been interpolated into a story that had
already taken a fixed form, that we need only ask
whether St. Luke himself inserted it or a later inter
polator. Seeing, however, that St. Luke without
doubt betrays in his gospel an interest in St. Peter
and St. John (vide especially xx. 8 ; the other gospels
give no names here), it is precarious not to ascribe
this interest also to him in the Acts. Then it would
follow that the tradition of chaps, iii. and iv. lay
before him in a fixed i.e. in a written form of nar
rative l with which it would also seem necessary to com
bine chap. v. 1-11. It may, moreover, be maintained
that chapter xii. depends upon a written document, both
on account of its introduction, the brevity of which
would be otherwise incomprehensible, and because of
other phenomena it presents. It is not so probable
that the passage x. 1-xi. 18 depends upon a written
tradition, and such an hypothesis is quite uncertain
in the case of chaps, viii. and ix. 32-43. It is not,
however, necessary to imagine that because some of
these passages with great probability are based upon
written tradition, it therefore follows that the same
hypothesis must be extended to all the rest. How
ever probable it is that the passages we have included
under A form a certain homogeneous whole, it cannot
be shown that in matters of form this unity is so
complete that it is not possible to suppose that some

1 Note also that it is only here that our Lord is called 6 rait
8tov (vide supra) an important point 1

244 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of its elements may have reached St. Luke in writing
and others by way of oral tradition, nor to suppose
that they may depend upon the authority of different
persons. The whole of the phenomena seems to be
best explained on the supposition that St. Luke re
ceived from St. Philip (or from him and his daughters)
partly oral information, partly also written tradition,
which helped out the oral accounts. This body of
tradition referred to St. Philip^s own ministry, but
above all it was made up of reminiscences concerning
St. Peter (and for these St. Mark also comes under
consideration). What was written can, however,
scarcely have been written in Greek, but must have
been composed in the Aramaic tongue ; for the Lukan
vocabulary and style can be traced into the most
intimate details of the narratives, while from the
syntax of the sentences, and from many turns of
phraseology, we may conclude that the original was
perhaps Semitic.

As for the historical value of the records in A, we
have already considered this question in the preceding
chapter. This collection of traditions proceeds from
one who thoroughly believed in the miraculous, and
was probably himself endowed with supernatural gifts,
and it has received some legendary embellishments.
But the legendary element can easily be discerned as
such ; and beneath the whole there lies a nucleus of
historical fact. This nucleus appears especially in
chapters iii. and iv. (the intelligible development of
events leading up to the " outpouring of the Spirit "
and the foundation of the Church). In this source
the stories of the conversion of the Samaritans and of

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 245

Cornelius were not related as stages leading up
to the mission to the Gentiles, but simply as stories
concerning St. Peter and St. Philip. 1 It was only
the way in which St. Luke has used them for his
history that first gave them their appearance of
stages. Lastly, the facts referred to in chapter xii.
may be said to depend upon genuine and trustworthy
tradition.

V. It now only remains for us to conclude with the
investigation of the extensive Jerusalem-Antiochean
source (vi. 1-viii. 4; xi. 19-30; xii. 25 [xiii. 1]
xv. 35). In favour of the written character of this
source we may adduce the following weighty con
siderations :

(1) The abrupt fashion in which it begins at vi. 1,
indeed in which it begins everywhere, when it starts
afresh. Note especially the verbal identity of viii. 4
and xi. 19.

(2) Certain terminological and other differences,
though not many, which exist between it and the
remaining portions of the first half of the Acts.

(3) The consideration that the speech of St. Stephen
seems to have been edited (though not to the extent
assumed by Weiss), and that its conclusion seems to
have been curtailed.

(4) The consideration that ix. 1930 looks like an
extract ; while on the other hand xiii. 4 xiv. 28 gives
the impression of having been expanded from shorter
records.

1 For this very reason the ordinary objections that are advanced
against an historical nucleus in the story of Cornelius fall to the
ground.

246 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(5) The consideration that chap. xv. seems to have
been based upon a fuller narrative.

(6) The appearance of unity and of gradual develop
ment up to a climax which can be traced through
out, and distinguishes all the passages assigned to this
source.

(7) The consideration that St. Philip, one of the
" seven," plays no part here, though his name is men
tioned.

(8) The consideration that the actual circumstances
of the story of St. Stephen (a riot in the streets)
can still be discerned behind the representation of
St. Luke, who has placed the scene in the council-
chamber.

(9) The consideration that vii 57 viii. 3 is best
explained as an unskilful shuffling together of two
sources, of which one at least must have been written.

(10) The consideration that St. Barnabas is here
not only treated as of equal authority with St. Paul,
but is even set in the foreground.

(11) The consideration that xv. 40 is discrepant
with xv. 33. 1

Not one of these considerations affords a convincing
proof of the written character of the source it is also
possible to assume later interpolation and editing 2
but the impression that part at least of this source,

1 The discrepancy is indeed so flagrant that one is inclined to
conjecture a later interference with the text.

2 It is not probable that the conclusion of the speech of St.
Stephen has been curtailed by some later corrector, seeing that a
too sharp attack upon the Temple and " the customs delivered by
Moses" would also to St. Luke himself have seemed wanting in
reverence.

WRITTEN OR ORAL SOURCES 247

perhaps the whole, was in writing makes itself felt
still more strongly than in the case of the source A.
If Silas was the authority for this body of tradition
and considering the subject-matter and the relations
that existed between himself and St. Paul, what more
likely person could we imagine ! it follows that in
this case also we may suppose that oral information
was helped out by written notes. Such a solution of
the problem seems to answer best to the actual situa
tion ; but I am far from holding it as certain. St.
Luke has shall we say, unfortunately ? understood
how to give his work such a stamp of homogeneity
that, with the exception of the vindication of the
we-sections for the author himself, of the discovery
of the doublets in A and B, 1 and of the separation
from the rest of the book of a distinct collection of
narratives connected with both Jerusalem and Antioch,
there is nothing in the criticism of the sources of

1 But the following pretty little experience of mine teaches how
careful one should be in assuming doublets. On a rainy day beside
the Walensce, I was turning over the leaves of the Jahrbuch det
I] istorixchtn Vereins det kanlon Glarut, 27. Heft (l-92). In an article
on " St. Felix and Regula in Spain " I read (pp. 6/.) as follows : " If
any one had anywhere read that in the third decade of this century a
pupil of the public school of Aarau, the son of one Triimpi, a pastor in
Schwanden [Canton Glarus], was drowned near Aarau when bath
ing in the Aar, and had afterwards read somewhere else that in
1837 one Balthasar Leuzinger, son of M. Leuzinger, the pastor
in Schwanden, was drowned when bathing in the Aar close to
Aarau, if the reader were at all of a critical turn of mind he would
assuredly have drawn the conclusion that one and the same occur
rence was evidently referred to in each case. . . . And yet it
actually happened that two young natives of Glarus, both of them
sons of a pastor of Schwanden, were drowned in the neighbour
hood of Aarau [thus a long way from Schwanden]."

248 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

the Acts that can be maintained with absolute con
fidence.

We have already discussed (pp. 195,^. and elsewhere)
the high historical worth of this Antiochean source.
We owe to it most important information concerning
the early history of the Church of Jerusalem and the
beginning of the mission to the Gentiles, filling up
great gaps in the information we derive from the
epistles of St. Paul. Without this source we should
have been unable to form any conception concerning
certain fundamental historical questions, or we should
at least have arrived at a conception which would
have been incorrect. But there is one account in this
source which seems to threaten its trustworthiness
I refer to the Apostolic Decree of the Council of
Jerusalem.

Our concern is only with the Decree itself the
rest of the narrative in chapter xv. either presents no
difficulties at all, or at least not such as would exclude
its composition by St. Luke i.e. by a man who was
in a position to make inquiries from the eye-witnesses. 1

1 It must not, of course, be forgotten that other points of differ
ence exist between Gal. ii. and Acts xv. The most glaring are
these that, in the Acts, the Apostles seem from the first to have
stood upon the side of freedom, and that St. Paul is not repre
sented as standing on an equality with them, indeed they seem
rather to form a court of higher instance. But this is partly
only appearance. Even according to the Acts the conversion of
Cornelius did not have the result that the Apostles now became
missionaries to the Gentiles, or in plain terms, recognised the
Mission (St. Luke makes them refer to the story of Cornelius as
an event that had happened long ago), and even from the Acts
one can see clearly enough that it was the account which St.
Barnabas and St. Paul gave of the success of their mission that
led to the final decision. If, however, St. Paul, when compared

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 249

But the Apostolic Decree, if it contained a general
declaration against eating sacrifices offered to idols,
against partaking of blood or things strangled, and
against fornication, is inconsistent with the account
given by St. Paul in Gal. ii. 1-10, 1 and with the
corresponding passages in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians. It is, accordingly, unhistorical. But
if the Decree is unhistorical, it follows that it is in
the highest degree improbable that a companion of
Silas and St. Paul either wrote or accepted from
others what we read in Acts xv. Both he and his
authority must have known the real result of the
deliberations of the Council. Neither could St. Luke
have been so audacious as to forge the result, nor so
simple as to forget it or to exchange it for another
tradition, seeing especially that he lays great stress
upon the fact that St. Paul and Silas on their
missionary journey delivered this very Decree to the
churches (xvi. 4), and seeing that he himself refers

with the Apostles, here falls into the background, we must neverthe
less allow St. Luke, who was not present on this occasion, the
liberty so to picture the scene to himself, seeing especially that we
have here a conflict of two representations, and that the religious
and apostolic independence which St. Paul claimed for himself
by no means excludes that at that time the Church of Jerusalem
with its leaders was regarded as the court of ultimate appeal for
the whole of Christendom. (Even if the Decree is authentic, I have
always regarded the letter as a creation of St. Luke. He perhaps
imitated some other letter of the kind.) Besides, we must not
forget that even St. Paul has written in Gal. ii. 2 : ivt6tij.-r)v ai/rott
(the " pillars " of the Church of Jerusalem) rb fua.yyt\iov & Kijpvaau
Iv rots tOvtaiv . . . fi,rj TTWJ tit ntvbv rp^x u ^ I8pa.fj.ov. This after all
is not so very different from the impression which is given by the
Acts.

1 And also with the narrative of Gal. ii. II /.

250 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

to it again in xxi. 25. It is possible to suppose that
a later annalist, who could no longer communicate
with eye-witnesses, might have made a mistake about
this Decree, or might have mixed up two different
decrees but in the case of a companion of St. Paul
who met with the Apostle soon after the promulgation
of the Decree, such a supposition is quite inadmissible.
The same holds good of the person who formed his
authority.

Now it is well known that the Apostolic Decree is
handed down to us in a twofold form in the manu
scripts and by the Fathers. Following in the steps
of other scholars, whose vision, however, had not been
keen enough, I have gone most thoroughly into the
question in an article published in the Sitzungsberichte
d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 2. Marz 1899. I here
arrived at the result which is now, so far as I know,
widely accepted that the Decree according to one
tradition prohibited certain foods (flesh offered to
idols, blood, things strangled) and fornication, and
that according to the other tradition it was a sum
mary of Jewish ethical catechetics (the abstaining
from flesh offered to idols in the sense of sharing in
the idolatrous feasts, and in idolatry generally from
murder and fornication, " and all which ye would not
that others should do to you, even so do it not to
them "). In this article I attempted to prove a
position which up to that time I had agreed with
almost every one in accepting, namely, that the first
of these two forms of the Decree (we may call it the
Eastern form and that of the Uncials) was the original,
and that the second form (we may call it that of the

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 251

Western Fathers, including Irenaeus ; it is also that of
Codex D) must accordingly be regarded as due to
interpolation.

Since that time and I may say with great reluct
ance and after long consideration I have arrived at
a different conclusion. I am not fond of correcting
myself and it is not the first time but magis arnica
veritas! Besides, the main structure of my article
still stands firm. The conversion was effected by the
excellent and exhaustive treatise of Resch, junior, Das
Aposteldekrei nach seiner ausserkanonischen Tcxtgestalt
(Texte und Unters., Bd. 28, Heft 3, 1905). 1 But
there were two other contributory influences : (1) A
conviction, strengthened by Wellhausen (Noten z.
Apostelgesch., s. 19 ^.), that the word TTVIKTOV did not
belong to the original text, and (2) the perception
that the Decree in its ordinary form did not fit in
well with its context in chapter xv.

TLviKTov is wanting in Dd, Athous, Sahid., Iren.,
Porphyr., Gigas, Augustine (ep. 82, Specul. and else
where), Tertull., Cyprian, Pacian, Hieron, App. ad
Eucher. opp., Ambrosiaster, Fulgent. It is combined
with cu/xa to form one idea in the Vulgate [sanguine
suffbcato], and by Cyril of Jerusalem [ai/xcrro? TTVIKTOV]
and by Gaudentius [a sanguine id est siiffocatis] ; on
the other hand, at/ma is wanting in Orig. lat. in Matth.

i In the year 1906 there also appeared a treatise by A. Seeburg
entitled, Die beiden Wege und das Apostcldekret. In my article in the
Sitzsungsberichten I had already touched upon the " Two Ways,"
and used it to illustrate the Apostolic Decree in its Western form.
Seeburg in his careful treatise has carried this much further ; but
I cannot accept his conclusions, seeing that they presuppose the
originality of the prohibitions of food in Acts xv.

252 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

and in Methodius. Moreover, Wellhausen has decis
ively proved c/!also Resch s learned notes on TTVIKTOV
that TTVIKTOV is included in the prohibition of af/xa
(if cu/xa means " partaking of blood " ; it only occurs
in those authorities where cu/ma has this meaning),
and cannot stand as a separate member of the list. 1
Accordingly, the original decree, as reported by St.
Luke, read in its second half as follows :
et$(i)\o6uT(jov KOI OU/ULO.TOS KOI TTOpveio.? e wv
eavTovs ev TrpdPeaOe. As soon as this is recognised, the
question concerning the original meaning of the Decree
becomes no longer a question of text but simply of inter
pretation. The Western authorities (and D) have
made it quite clear, by the interpolation (6Va /x/
OeAere eavrois yivearQal Tepu&gt; jj.rj Trcuefj ), which inter
pretation they preferred. 2 But is this not really the
meaning intended by St. Luke ? Resch and already

1 It is also in favour of the original absence of irviKrhv that the
insertion of the word can be easily explained (vide infra), and that
as a general rule interpolations into the text [especially in D, but
also elsewhere] are far more frequent than omissions [amid the
enormous number of additions in D can we point to a single omission
which is not due to grammatical considerations or to carelessness?
vide Weiss in Texte u. Unters., Bd. 9, s. 37 jf.]. If irviKrhv stood
originally in the text, and was afterwards omitted, this would have
implied gross interference with the text. If it was originally absent,
and then inserted with the intention of giving what was thought
to be a correct interpretation of afyia, this would scarcely have been
called interpolation. However, Wellhausen s supposition that in
the case that al/j.a means " shedding of blood " n-viKT&v may be
original (but not if it means " partaking of blood," as he supposes)
seems scarcely possible ; for it is incredible that any one should
have set together in this fashion the abominations of idolatry,
murder, fornication, and eating things strangled.

a It is here assumed that these words are interpolated. That
this was probably so vide infra.

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 253

before him Hilgenfeld 1 have answered in the affir
mative, in opposition to all other scholars. What
support, then, can be found for the usual interpreta
tion (prohibition of meats and of fornication), if
TTVIKTOV does not belong to the original text ? Nothing
certainly in the context of the Acts whether one
considers only chapter xv. or the whole book nor in
the epistles of St. Paul. Moreover, the united testi
mony of the exegesis of the ancient Western Fathers
is opposed to this interpretation. So far as I can see,
the conception that the Decree originally included
prohibition of meats can be based only on the follow
ing considerations :

(1) Upon the exegesis of the Eastern Fathers, but
not until St. Clement and Origen ;

(2) On passages in very ancient documents (e.g.
The Revelation), in which the eating of flesh offered
to idols appears as something that is altogether
abominable ;

(3) On the consideration that as eating is referred
to in the word eiScoXodurov, it may also be understood
in the case of al/ma ;

(4) Upon the consideration that it would seem
superfluous to insist upon plain and obvious moral
commandments, and that the Decree must there
fore have dealt with more special precepts ;

(5) Upon the consideration that it is more probable
that ceremonial ordinances should have been trans
formed in course of tradition into general ethical
commandments than the opposite case.

1 Ztschr./.wii*. Theol., 1890, B. C25 /. ; 1899, B. 138/. ; Act*
App. Grace et Latine, 1899.

254 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Of these five arguments the first has no weight,
because the exegesis of the Eastern Fathers begins
after the time that TTVIKTOV had found its way into
the text. Neither is the second to the point ; for the
Decree in either form forbids iropvevarai KOI (payeiv
etu&gt;\69vra (Revelation). The question is only what
range of meaning " aTreyecrQcu el$u&gt;\o6vTU&gt;v " is in
tended to have in the Decree (taking part in sacri
ficial feasts may be meant ; but partaking of any
flesh that was used in sacrifice may also be under
stood) ; and this cannot be decided from the wording
alone, but only from the context. The third argu
ment is likewise without force ; for Tropveia has
nothing to do with eating, neither therefore need
oil/ma be so interpreted. It cannot be allowed that it
is more natural to translate aTre^eaOai TOV CU/ACCTO?
by the words to abstain from partaking of blood,"
than by the words " to abstain from murder." 11 1 When
at/Act stands by itself, or side by side with Idolatry or
Fornication, it is rather to be understood as " murder,"
unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, vide
Lev. xvii. 4 : XoyierOr ja-eTai TO? avQpunrco cupa, Deut.
xvii. 8 : eav aSvvaTya-fl airo &lt;rov ptj/J-a ev Kpiirei ava
[j.ecrov ai/J.a ou/Aaro? /cat ava /zeTOi&gt; Kptcris Kpia-ews,
Sirach xxxiv. 25 : aproy eTriSeojaevcav ^u&gt;rj TTTW^WV, o
avTtjv avBpcoTros ai]u.aT&lt;av, St. Matt, xxiii.

1 1 Thess. iv. 3 : dir^xeo-^a &*?&gt; TTJS iropveiat, 1 Thess. v. 22 : airt&gt;
fiSovs iravijpov d-n^eydai, 1 Pet. ii. 11 : a.irl Xfada.i dirk T&V
ewv iiri.Qi fj.iCjv, 1 Tim. iv. 3 : avt-xtadai. ppwfj.a.Tuv. At the third
place in which the Decree appears in the Acts (xxi. 25) dWxe&lt;70ai
is replaced by &lt;j&gt;v\d&lt;r&lt;Teo-6ai. In the N.T. (f&gt;v\d.cra-e(r6ai is never found
in combination with prohibitions concerning meats (though it does
occur in combination with TrXeove^-a in St. Luke xii. 15).

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 255

30 : Koii wi o] ev TU&gt; OU/JLUTL Twv TrpochtjTu/v. 1 There
thus remain only the two last arguments general
considerations whose validity shall be straightway
tested.

On the other hand, in favour of the interpretation
of the Apostolic Decree as giving moral precepts, we
have the following arguments : 2

(1) In the whole of St. Luke s book, where it deals
with the Gentile Christian controversy, there is no
other reference to the question of prohibited meats,
but only to questions of capital importance namely,
to Circumcision and the Mosaic Law as a whole. It is
most strange that in a single passage, and that a
passage so important, St. Luke should suddenly in
troduce rules concerning meats without making any
further remark, or giving any reason for their appear
ance. Fundamental ethical directions, on the other
hand, do not suffer from this difficulty. 3

1 This use of the word is also found in the profane writers (vide
Resch, p. 42). We need no examples to prove that alfj.a, when
placed side by side with Idolatry and Fornication, as a rule means
"shedding of blood."

1 I omit the arguments in favour of this interpretation which
may be derived from the Pauline epistles, although, after all, there
in no reason for this forbearance.

* St. Peter s vision in chapter x. (the sheet with the unclean
animals) ought not to be adduced here. But even if it is thought
necessary to take notice of this instance, it will be found that it
does not favour the view that chapter xv. deals with regulat ions con
cerning meats. The import of chapter x. is that these regulations
were an especially characteristic element of the Law of the Old
Testament from which St. Peter was to shake himself free. How,
then, could St. Luke have related, without turning a hair, that re
gulations concerning meats were nevertheless imposed upon Gentile
Christians ?

256 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(2) The combination of prohibition of meats and
fornication why this selection ? is a detail that no
one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily. 1 On
the other hand, the combination of Idolatry, Murder,
and Fornification is quite intelligible, and can be
instanced from the ethical catechisms of contemporary
Judaism.

(3) If the commandments of the Decree prohibited
meats they undoubtedly formed part of the Jewish
Law ; but we read just beforehand (xv. 19 /".) that
nothing of the Jewish Law was to be imposed upon
the Gentile Christians, seeing that this Law still
continued in force and in practice among the Jews ;
accordingly (if the commands of the Decree are inter
preted as forbidding certain meats) a discrepancy, not
easy to be removed, arises between " /u.t] Trapevo^Xetv
TO?? cnro TWV eOvwv eTTKTTpefpovcriv eirt TOV Qeov " (and
fjitjSev Tr\eov eTriTi6e&lt;r9ai vjj.lv /3dpo$J and this " onre-
^eaOai. 1 On the other hand, though the moral in
junctions were also Mosaic commandments, still they
would have been generally regarded as command
ments of the universal Moral Law ; for the conscience
of Judaism had at that time already advanced as far
as this.

(4) It is difficult to understand why it is that just

1 I have emphasised this point also in my earlier article (p. 19) :
" It only remains for us to admit that we cannot explain the object
and the selection here. We do not know whether we ought to give
vopveia a quite general meaning, or whether we must understand
it in its more special significance ; we cannot tell why just these
four commands have been selected out of the abundance of legal
ordinances ; more particularly our attitude towards the combination
of prohibition of meats with iropveia. is one of total ignorance."

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 257

these points (prohibition of meats !) are described as
absolutely essential (ruvra TO. eVaVfy/ce?), and how it
could be regarded as a necessary condition of the eu
jrpd(T(reii&gt; of Christians that they should observe them
(f S)v SiaTypovvre? eavrov? ev Trpd^ere). 1 On the con
trary, there is here no difficulty if the Decree deals
with moral precepts ; these are, in fact, the necessary
presupposition of eu irpd(T(reii&gt;.

(5) The meaning of the word " eiSuiXoOurov " is to
be derived from the first passage in which the Decree
appears (xv. 20). Here, however, we read " aTre^ecrOai
TWV a\i&lt;ryr]/ui.d.T(i)v TWV eiw\(i)v." Accordingly, eiStaXo-
OVTOV does not specially refer to the sacrificial flesh
that was on sale in the markets, nor indeed even
exclusively to the flesh of the sacrificial feasts, but
simply to Idolatry in general. Participation in the
idolatrous feasts is especially emphasised, simply
because this was the crassest form of idolatry. 2

(6) The objection that the prohibition of murder
is in such a document strange and superfluous has
no force ; 3 for, in the first place, the combination of
the three elements of the Decree is formal, depend
ing upon the Decalogue and the " Two Ways " ;

1 It would be otherwise if we read " on these conditions we will
enter into fellowship with you " ; but we do not read this, nor ii
this idea introduced. Nothing at all is said about fellowship and
intercommunion.

1 In the first passage where the Decree occurs in the Acts we
may assume with some probability that there is absolutely no
intention to prohibit meats. But the other passages must be
interpreted by the first, i.e. ddu\60vrov is accordingly to be under
stood as pars pro toto.

3 Wellhausen writes : " This for Christian Gentiles seems surely
too self-evident."

258 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

secondly, more refined as well as gross forms of af/xa
were very prevalent in Heathendom, and these needed
to be earnestly combated (exposure and slaying of
children, abortion, murder of slaves, &c.) ; thirdly, it
was already a part of Jewish teaching that " murder "
included every injury to the life of one s neighbour.
Lastly, let us recollect that St. Peter writes (1 Pet.
iv. 15) : ju.yj rt? v/u.u&gt;v 7raa"^eT(i) 009 c^oveu?, that we read
in the First Epistle of St. John (iii. 15) : Tra? 6 /xtcrav
TOV ae\(pov avrov avOpWTTOKTOvos ecrr/v, that the
Revelation as if in dependence upon the Apostolic
Decree proclaims (xxii. 15): ew . . . oi Tropvoi
KOI oi (povets KOI oi ei(i)\d\a.Tpai, and that St.
James writes, even in reference to Christians (iv. 2) :
(bovevere KOI faXovre. Moreover, Irenaeus expressly
says that when heathens were converted it was neces
sary to teach them the most elementary moral pre
cepts. Indeed, seeing that at the Apostolic epoch
conversions were often perhaps as a rule ecstatic
in character, i.e. wrought " by the Spirit," it was
doubly necessary to insist most strongly upon the
great general principles of morality, especially in
cases where the authority of the Mosaic Law was
not felt. It is therefore far from being strange
that these ethical commandments should occur in
the context of the Apostolic Decree ; they are rather
proved to be necessary and very much to the point.
These three ordinances against Idolatry, Murder, and
Fornication are intended to exclude the whole sphere
of non-moral conduct.

(7) Resch quite rightly points out that the exist
ence of an authoritative law against partaking oJ

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 259

blood is not to be found in the most ancient Chris
tian documents earlier than the Epistle from Lyons
and Vienne, and that there is absolutely no evidence
in primitive times for the prohibition of sacrificial
flesh sold in the markets. The prohibition in the
Epistle from Lyons is not based upon the Apostolic
Decree indeed we know from Irenaeus that in that
part of the world the Apostolic Decree was at that
time regarded as a code of ethical precepts. But
the polemic against eiSwXoOurov was, as a rule, a
polemic against participation in idolatrous sacrificial
feasts. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists
know nothing of regulations concerning meats bind
ing upon Christians. If it is otherwise with the (fiayetv
eiSwXoOura of the Revelation, and with the i(a\66urov
of the Didache (vi. 3) and this cannot be proved no
reference is at any rate made to the Apostolic Decree.

(8) The whole Western Church understood the
Apostolic Decree as an ethical rule, and even Fathers
(like Tertullian 1 ) who already recognised the prohibition
of blood and of things strangled as binding upon
Christians, so understood it.

From these considerations, as it seems to me, it
follows that St. Luke (who did not write TTVIKTOV at
all) understood the three clauses a-Ke-^ea-Qai rcov O\UT-
yq/j.dTu&gt;v Ttav eiScaXcov (etScoXoOvruiv) /ecu T&gt;/? Tropvelas
Kal rov cu/ictTOf as an abstract of an ethical catechism,
and that he intended his readers so to understand

1 Tertullian when mentioning the prohibition of blood does not
appeal to the Decree (Apol. 9 ; De Monog. 5 ; De Jejun. 4) ; neither
does he appeal to the Decree in support of abstaining from flesh
offered to idols, but to Revelation and 1 Corinthians (De Spect. 13 ;
De Corona 10 ; De Praesc. 33 ; De Jejun. 15).

260 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

them. If this is accepted, then everything in the
Decree and in the narrative at once becomes consistent
and clear. We also see clearly that it was not neces
sary for St. Paul to mention these stipulations in the
Epistle to the Galatians, and that in spite of the
silence of this epistle they may very well be historical.
Moreover, we now see clearly how the false inter
pretation arose. 1 In the course of the second century,
but quite independently of the Apostolic Decree or
any other decree, the Jewish prejudice against partaking
of blood (like much else from the Old Testament in
spite of freedom from the Law) crept into the Church.
Then it was that early indeed, very early TTVIKTOV
was added to af^a in the margin of the Decree, 2 in
order to give the prejudice against the partaking of
blood the sanction of a commandment. This TTVIKTOV
transformed the whole Decree ! (The transformation
could scarcely have been carried out if the words KOI
o&lt;ra fJLt] OeXere cavrois yivea-Qai erepa) /u.rj iroielv had
been original ; it is therefore probable [not certain]
that they are an ancient interpolation which was in
tended to fix the character of the Decree as a summary
of moral precepts.) This could the more easily happen
since the brevity of the Decree made its meaning not
quite clear, and since a simple ethical catechism in a
document like this may have seemed superfluous to a
later generation. But it was at first only in the East
and very slowly that TTVIKTOV and the new inter -

1 Further details will be found in Resch, s. 151-170, to whose
discussion of this point I expressly refer.

2 The earliest direct testimony to this word is found in Clement
of Alexandria and Origen, but the consensus of almost all the
Uncials throws it back much further.

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE !tf&gt;l

pretation of the Decree spread from Alexandria and
gained general recognition. 1 In the West it was
not until the time of Augustine that, under Greek
influence, the false interpretation replaced the true.

If this conception of Acts xv. is correct, then we
can close whole libraries of commentaries and investi
gations as documents of the history of a gigantic
error ! What has not been written concerning the
Apostolic Decree as prohibiting meats concerning
the relation of Gal. ii. and Acts xv. on the assump
tion that Acts xv. deals with the question of prohibited
meats concerning Jewish and Gentile Christianity
concerning the " commandments of the Covenant with
Noah " and concerning the historical worthlessness of
the Acts of the Apostles ! The scribe who first wrote
the little word TTI IKTOV opposite af/xa, on the margin
of his exemplar, created a Flood which has for almost
two thousand years swamped the correct interpreta
tion of the whole passage ! The joy that the truth
has been at last discerned is mingled with sorrow and
vexation over labour that has been unspeakably great
and utterly useless !

If the interpretation which we have here demon
strated is correct, then according to Acts xv. the only
question in debate was this whether Gentiles who
wished to become brother Christians were to be
circumcised and subjected to the yoke of the Mosaic

1 The consensus of all the Uncials (except D) in support of an
interpolation is a new and strong proof that this consensus offers
no guarantee that the text is genuine, and that it points to an
Alexandrian recension. The importance of Codex D supported,
to be sure, by all the Western authorities is here brought into
great prominence I

262 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Law. This question was answered in the negative ;
indeed, even St. James declared that the burden of
the Law was not to be placed upon their shoulders,
but that they must simply observe the great moral
precepts. They were therewith recognised as Chris
tians ; but nothing is said in the Decree regarding
the practical attitude which the Jewish Christians
intended to adopt towards them in the future.
Nothing, however, is said about this in Galatians.
Though the words of that epistle : " e/xo&lt; oi ^o/eovrre?
ovfiev TrpcxraveOevTo" and " Sepias eScoKav e/mol /ecu
BajOz/a/3a KOivwvla?, "iva )]/uiiy ei$ ra eOvq, avTol 8e ei? T&gt;;J&gt;
Tremro/xj/f," as well as " aXX ovSe T/rof . . . tjvayKa.a Qri
7repiTju.r]Orjvai" do not contain verbal confirmation of
the record of the Acts ; yet no one can any longer main
tain that the Acts gives at this point a representation
which conflicts with the account given by St. Paul an
account that has evidently a distinct personal colour
ing and reference. We have here two entirely in
dependent reports (one by St. Paul, the other by
a man who was equally interested in Jerusalem and
Antioch), accounts which can quite well be reconciled
with each other, and which both of them show that
the result arrived at by the Council was simply a
theoretical recognition of the Gentiles, together with
only an unsatisfying and an unsatisfactory determina
tion to keep the peace. 1 Nevertheless, the advance was

1 The scene in Antiocb between St. Peter and St. Paul is now,
even after what the Acts tells us, not unintelligible. If we are
obliged to regard the Decree as prohibiting meats, the scene would
be difficult to explain ; for such regulations could only have been
enjoined in order to make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Chris
tians to have fellowship with one another and to eat together.

THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 26S

of course tremendous : strict Jewish Christians now
recognised that Gentiles by birth could be Christians
without circumcision and the observance of the Law.
The Antiochean source is accordingly free from
objection also in this point, and St. Luke in follow
ing this source has trusted to a good authority, nor
has he told us anything that he could not have told
us as a companion of St. Paul. But critics have
always accounted Acts xv. as their chief support for
the hypothesis that the Acts could not have been
composed by St. Luke. This support is now, I think
I may assume, withdrawn. Perhaps I am not too
bold in hoping that they will draw therefrom the
logical conclusions.

EXCURSUS I

SURVEY OF THE NARRATIVES OF ST. LUKE (CONCERNING
THE PRIMITIVE COMMUNITY AND THE EARLIER
HISTORY OF ST. PAUL, ACTS I. -XIV.) WHICH ARE CON
FIRMED BY THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 1

(1) Jerusalem, not some town in Galilee, is the seat
of the Primitive Community, the centre and, so to
speak, the Forum of the Christian Movement (Acts
passim Gal. ii. &c.).

(2) Christian communities were also in existence
outside Jerusalem, and especially in Judaea, at a very
early date; there was a time when Christendom was
described as " the Churches of Judaea " either a parte

fortiori or in the literal sense (Acts ix. 31 : rj e/c/cA^crm
/ca$ oXrjs r&gt;79 loi/oa/ay, Acts xi. 1 : oi aTroaroXoi KOI
ol a$e\&lt;po} oi ovre? Kara rtjv lovSaiav, xi. 29 : oi
KdToiKovvTes ev Tfl Iof(Wa o.8e\(poi) 1 Thess. ii. 14 ;
Gal. i. 22).

(3) The Christian communities are called both at
KK\tjcrlai (Acts and Pauline epistles, vv. 11.) and /

1 The comparison of the second half of the history of St. Paul
(including Acts xv.), according to the record of the Acts and of
St. Paul himself, though it is still by no means superfluous labour,
may here be left out of consideration. We are here practically
concerned only with Acts i.-xiv., and our purpose is to show to
what extent these chapters also receive confirmation from the
epistles of St. Paul.

204

EXCURSUS I 2(55

KK\tj&lt;ria (Acts ix. 31 ; xii. 1 ; Gal. i. 13) ; they there
fore form in some fashion a united body.

(4) The Christians are called both ot ayioi and 01
aSe\(f)oi (Acts and Pauline epistles passim). 1

(5) The Churches of .Jerusalem and Judaea had to
endure persecutions at the hands of their compatriots,
indeed these persecutions were a characteristic cir
cumstance of their existence (Acts passim, 1 Thess.
ii. 14).

(6) These Churches held fast to the observance
of the Law (Acts xv. 1 /. ; xxi. 20 ; Gal. ii. 12),
and for this very reason St. Paul, even towards the
end of his career, was not quite sure of the attitude
of the Church of Jerusalem towards himself (Rom.
xv. 31).

(7) At the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and
therefore at the head of these Churches, stood the
Twelve," who are also called the Apostles " (Acts
i. 13; vi. 2, &c. ; Gal. i. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 5); the
character of their primacy is defined neither in the
Acts nor by St. Paul.

(8) Beside the twelve Apostles there were also other

1 St. Paul never uses the name " Christian " ; but the Acts also
avoids it, and only informs us that it was used (xi. 26 : xP r !f iaT ^ ffai
= vocari) by outsiders (first in Antioch), therefore also by King
Agrippa (xxvi. 28). Thus here also there is complete agreement. It
is otherwise in 1 Pet. \Y. 16 and in Ignatius (&lt;/. Tacitus and Pliny).
The fact that ol naOijraL is so frequent in the Acts, while this desig
nation is entirely absent from the Pauline epistles, is by no means
a proof of a later date for the Acts ; on the contrary, it is surprising
that the designation should be wanting in the epistles. The reason
can only be that St. Paul purposely avoided the term as liable
to misconstruction, just as he never speaks of our Lord as "The
Master." " St. John " did not share in this feeling.

266 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

apostles ; St. Barnabas in particular was an apostle
(Acts xiv. 4, 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6). 1

(9) St. Peter and St. John stand out from the
number of the Twelve Apostles (Acts iii. \ff. ; viii.
14 jf. ; Gal. ii. 9).

(10) The real head, however, is St. Peter (Acts ii.
37, &c. ; Gal. i. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5).

(11) He is also commissioned to be the head of the
Mission (among the Jews), and as such makes journeys
(Acts vv. 11.; Gal. ii. 78; Gal. ii. 11).

1 We can discern both in the Acts and in the writings of St. Paul
the twofold character of the twelve Apostles as "the Twelve"
they were the leaders, but they also possessed the apostolic
character which of itself had nothing to do with the number twelve
(the term apostle is applied in the Acts to an individual or to in
dividuals in pairs) ; but the process of limitation of the conception
of apostleship to " the Twelve " is much further advanced with St.
Luke than with St. Paul. St. Paul and St. Barnabas alone appear
as apostles side by side with the Twelve (xiv. 4, 14). In the second
half of the book the word apostle is entirely wanting probably
accidentally, or because there was no occasion to use it. In the
first half the use is in general quite unambiguous, i.e. the Twelve
Apostles are the ruling body. Yet it must be pointed out that the
wider use of the word, as well as the term " ol 5c65e/ca " (without
dir6&lt;TTo\oi), is found only in the Antiochean source, while on the
other hand it is only in the source B that the phrases " Peter and
the rest of the Apostles" (ii. 37), or "Peter and the Apostles," are
to be found.

Moreover, it is only in the Antiochean source that 01 irpea-pvTepoi
are found side by side with ol ciTrioToAot in Jerusalem (xv. 2, 4, 6,
22, 23 ; xvi. 4), while previously in xi. 30 (thus in the same source)
they are introduced without the Apostles. It is probable that we
have here a very accurate representation of events. When St. Paul
and St. Barnabas came to Jerusalem from Antioch the Herodian
persecution had begun and the Apostles had taken flight. In their
place St. James, at the head of a college of presbyters, had taken
over the leadership of the Church of Jerusalem (xii. 17), and this
arrangement established itself (xx. 18) : the rule of " the Twelve"

EXCURSUS I 267

(12) The Brethren of the Lord form a group side
by side with the Apostles (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5).

(13) St. James stands at their head, and is, like
St. Peter and St. John, a " pillar " indeed, from
a definite point of time he occupies in Jerusalem a
position of monarchical authority (Acts xii 17; xxi.
18; xv. 13 jf.; 1 Co:-, xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9; Gal. ii. 12).

(14) St. Barnal as appears as the most important of
the missionaries to the Gentiles together with St. Paul
(and set upon an equality with him), and he is governed
by the same principles of missionary work as St. Paul
(Acts ix. 27; xi. 22 ff. ; xiii.-xv. ; Gal. ii. I./.;
1 Cor. ix. 6).

was thus never restored. It is, however, probable that individual
members of the Twelve, who were now only apostles, returned
afterwards to Jerusalem on temporary visits. On such occasions
they would naturally take a part, and a very prominent part, in the
government of the Church in that city. So it was when St. Paul
came to Jerusalem for the so-called Apostolic Council. St. Peter
and St. John were present in Jerusalem, and strengthened by their
authority the rule of St. James and the presbyters. We do not
know whether any other members of the Twelve, and if so how
many, were then in Jerusalem. If these plain and obvious deduc
tions from the record of the Acts answer to facts, then Wellhausen s
hypothesis (s. 5/.) that the presbytery of the Church of Jerusalem
was coincident with " the Twelve," and that the phrase ol driWoXoi
Kal ol irpcffpfrrepoi is therefore a hybrid, is not only very daring but
also quite inadmissible. Again, Wellhausen makes a mistake when
he adds : " The sharp-sighted reviser, to whom we owe the recension
of D, took offence at the hybrid and corrected it in Acts xv." In
none of the six places where the phrase occurs has the revisor
corrected it. The mistake has probably arisen because in D the
article " ol" is wanting before " irptafivrtpoi." in xv. 6. Wellhausen
evidently regarded the note " om. ol" as referring also to
" *7&gt;&lt;7/3i/repoi." Besides, even if ol wpffffivrepoi. had been omitted
in only one place out of six, this would have had no significance,
and must have been simply accidental.

268 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

(15) According to the Acts (iv. 36 ff.} this Barnabas
was a member of the Primitive Community ; accord
ing to Gal. ii. 11 jf. he feels more strongly than
St. Paul his dependence upon the authority of the
Primitive Community, especially of St. Peter and
St. James ; from this it is allowable to conclude that
he belonged to the Primitive Community.

(16) In the Acts St. Mark appears in especially
close connection with St. Barnabas (xv. 37,^1); from
Col. iv. 10 we learn that he was his " ai/e\J/-ioy."

(17) According to Acts xv. 40 ff. Silas, a member
of the Primitive Community, was a companion of
St. Paul, who as a missionary was in a position of
almost equal authority with that Apostle ; while the
position of Timothy (xvi. 1 Jf^ was more subordi
nate ; according to 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Cor.
i. 19, Silas stands before Timothy.

(18) In the Acts, even in the earliest period of the
history of the Church of Jerusalem, the number of
members is very considerable (ii. 41 ; iv. 4) ; according
to 1 Cor. xv. 6, before the appearances of our Lord
to St. James and to " the Apostles " (in a body) there
were already more than five hundred brethren in one
place (thus in Jerusalem).

(19) According to the Acts and St. Paul, reception
Cito the community was consummated by an act of
baptism ; but according to the Acts, Baptism does
not appear as one of the specific functions of the
apostolic office ; these were rather preaching and the
imparting of the Spirit (viii. 14 ff.} ; here 1 Cor.
i. 14, 17, forms a striking parallel.

(20) Baptism was in the name, of Jesus (Acts ii. 38,

EXCURSUS I 269

&c. ; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 13 /,
17, &c.).

(21) Baptism had for its object the a(pe&lt;n? ru&gt;i&gt;
v (Acts ii. 38; Rom. vi. \ Jf. ; Col. ii. 12/).

(22) The K\d(ris aprov is the social and religious
bond within the community (Acts ii. 42, 46 ; xx. 7,
11; 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 17 ff. 24).

(23) Ev^api&lt;rria and *Xacn? aprov belong together
(Acts xxvii. 35 : Xa/3a;v aprov ev^apio-Tr](Tev . . . KCU
ArAa&lt;ra? "jp^aro ecrOietv, 1 Cor. xi 23y. : eAa/3ei/ aprov
Kal vxapi(rr) i&lt;Ta? e/cAa&lt;rei&gt; . . . ocraKi? eav ecr& ere).

(24) The " Doctrine of the Apostles " is the funda
mental principle of the community and its bond of
unity (Acts ii. 42) ; we may here compare 1 Cor.
xv. 1-3.

(25) In Acts ii. 42, next to the Doctrine of the
Apostles and before the /cAao-i? aprou, stands the
" KOtvwvta " ; for this conception, which was also of
great importance in St. Paul s teaching, compare
Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 16, 18, 20; 2 Cor. 1, 7;
vi. 14; viii. 4, 23; xiii. 13 ; Phil. i. 5 ; ii.l; iii. 10;
Philem. 17.

(26) In Acts ii. 42 " the prayers " are introduced as
the fourth chief article of the summary there given ;
also in the Pauline epistles the basis and the sphere
of the Christian life are summed up in these four
articles (together with Baptism).

(27) From the speeches of St. Peter we see that the
most important subjects of the Apostolic teaching
were the Crucifixion and Death of our Lord : further,
the fact that He did not abide in the grave but rose
again and manifested Himself ou iravri. ru&gt; \aw oAAa

270 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

fj-apTvcnv TrpOKexeipoTOvq/mevoi? (Acts x. 41 ; cf. xiii.
31) all these things happened as had been fore
told in Holy Scripture ; just the subjects which St.
Paul specifies as fulfilments of prophecy, and to
which he himself bears witness that they formed the
content of the Apostolic teaching (1 Cor. xv. 1 11 :
Trapeu)Ka a KOI Trape\a(3ov . . . Kara ray ypad&gt;d$
. . . e tTC ovv eyca e tre eKeivoi, OI/TO&gt;? Krjpv&lt;r&lt;Toiu.ev KOI
ourcas eTTicrreucraTe). In the Acts (including the
speeches of St. Paul) the theoretical and practical
content of Christian doctrine is not unfrequently
summed up in the term " r/ o&lt;5o? " ; in 1 Cor. iv. 17
St. Paul speaks of ras 6ovs //tou ra? ev X^O-TO), /caOco?
Travra^ou ev Tracr?; e/c/cX^cr/a SiSdcnth).

(28) In the Acts the power to work miracles and
signs appears as part of the equipment of an apostle
and missionary (Acts ii. 43 ; iii. 12 ff. ; viii. 6 ff. ;
xiv. 3, &c.); but also in 2 Cor. xii. 11 /. we read:
ovSev v&lt;TTept]&lt;ra rwv \nrep\la.v cnroa-ToXcov, el KCU ovSev
iju.i. TO, /mev &lt;rt]iu.eia rov aTroaroAou Kareipyda-Ot] ev
vju.iv . . . cr&gt;7//,e/ot9 re KCU Tepacri KOI vva.ju.e(riv, cf.
Rom. xv. 18 f, : ov yap roX/xj/cra) TI XaXe^ &v ou
KaTeiydcrctTO X^oitrro? Si e/uov eis inraKotjv eOvwv, \6yu&gt;
KOU epyu&gt;, ev 8vvd/u.ei artj/J.etO)v KCU TepctTU&gt;v, ev Svvdjmei
Trveu/maTOS dyiov. With the special instance of the
display of Apostolic power in Acts v. 1 ff. compare
1 Cor. v. 1 /.

(29) In Acts xx. 3 (&c.) St. Paul says: eyu&gt; eijju

cf. Phil. iii. 5 : e/c yevovs Icroaj/X . . .
Efipalwv, and 2 Cor. xi. 22.

(30) In Acts xxvi. 5 St. Paul says : Kara rrjv

alpecriv r^? ly/uereyoa? OpqvKela?

EXCURSUS I 271

3&gt;apio-ato$, cf. Phil. iii. 5 f. : Kara VO/J.QV

. . . /caret SiKaioarvvrjv Trjv ev vo/j.u&gt; yevo^evo 1 ;

Also the words TrpoeKOTrrov ev " lovScua-fjua v-jrep TTO\\OV&lt;:

&lt;rvvt]\iKu&gt;Ta9 KT\. (Gal. i. 14) are illustrated by Acts

vii. 58 and ix. 2.

(31) In Acts ix. 1 /., &c., we are informed
that St. Paul originally persecuted the Christians ;
compare with this Gal. i. 13 /. ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ;
Phil. iii. 6.

(32) In the Acts St. Paul appears as an apostle on
a level with St. Peter (and the rest), cf. Gal. ii. 7 /. ;
2 Cor. xi. 23.

(33) According to the Acts St. Paul s conversion
was brought about near Damascus by a revelation of
our Lord, cf. Gal. i. 12, 17, and 1 Cor. xv. 8.

(34) According to the Acts St. Paul fled secretly
from Damascus (he was let down from the city wal]
ev a-TTupiSi) ; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 32 /.

(35) According to the Acts St. Paul then went to
Jerusalem but no time is given (ix. 26), St. Luke
seems to mean that he went at once and saw the
Apostles there ; cf. Gal. i. 18 f. (after three years ;
he saw St. Peter and St. James). With Acts xxiii.
11 (w? Sie/jLapTupw TO. Trepi efjLov ei f lepova-aXij/u.) we
may compare Rom. xv. 19 (coo-re /xe tnro Iepov&lt;ra\r]/j.
KOI KVK\(I) . . . TreTr\tjp(i)Kvat TO evayyeXiov).

(36) In the Acts St. Paul appears as the missionary
who laboured most in the Mission ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 10 ;
2 Cor. xi. 23.

(37) In Acts xiii. xiv. we have a homogeneous
narrative of the ministry and of the sufferings of
St. Paul in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra;

272 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

cf. 2 Tim. iii. 11 : TO?? SuayfJioi?, TOI? TraOijfjLacriv, oid
fj.oi e-yeVero ev Ajmo&gt;e/a, ev I/cowa), ey AJ&lt;TT|OOi?.

(38) According to Acts xiv. 23, St. Paul established
presbyters in the churches of Lycaonia ; compare with
these the TrpoiarraiJievoi of 1 Thess. \. 12 f. (the name
01 irpecrfiuTepoi is probably only accidentally absent
from the genuine Pauline epistles).

(39) In Acts xiii. 38 /., St. Paul says : ta TOVTOV
[through the Risen Christ] VJULIV a&lt;p&lt;Tis a/j-apri^v

\-\ r x i * f ^ /5

/caTocyyeAAercu [/ecu] airo iravTutv o)i&gt; OVK tjdvi tjutjre ev
/o/jia) M&lt;tji/cre(? SiKCtiwOyvai, ev TOVTW TTCC? 6 TTHTTevwv
SiKaiovrai. This is a summary of the great principle
of St. Paul s doctrine as it is taught in his own epistles
but from the standpoint of St. Luke.

The agreement which in these numerous instances
exists between the Acts (chaps, i. xiv.) and the Pauline
epistles, although the latter are only incidental writ
ings belonging to the later years of the Apostle, is
so extensive and so detailed as to exclude all wild
hypotheses concerning those passages of the Acts that
are without attestation in those epistles. The Acts
is an historical work that has nothing in common with
the later " Acts of the Apostles, 11 and is not to be
judged by the standard nor criticised by the method
which suits these. If we divide the remainder of
Acts i. xiv. into two parts, the first containing the
passages, the statements, and notices which have no
Pauline attestation, the second containing those which
are distinctly contradicted by St. Paul, we shall find
that the latter is almost a vanishing quantity. Only
in making our division we must dispense with that
self-complacent method whereby from our own really

EXCURSUS I 273

great and at present insuperable ignorance of events,
institutions, and other details of that period, a rope is
made to hang the author of the Acts. The axiom :
" What we do not know or cannot prove cannot be
right " still exercises a tyrannical sway in the sphere
of history, though we have learned by experience that
better understanding of known authorities, and the
discovery of new ones, have again and again proved
how mistaken it is to form hasty judgments con
cerning primitive Christian tradition. Hence in the
case of an historical work like the Acts, our attitude
towards passages containing elements that are strange
and extraordinary should be one of critical caution.
This does not mean that we are to forget that some
passages have been worked up, and that the author is
superstitious but who was not superstitious in those
days !

Finally, the character of the vocabulary of the
Acts is also just what we should have expected in
one who was a companion and friend, but not a
dependent disciple of St. Paul. I have already dealt
with this question in " Luke the Physician " (pp. 19^".).
The gospel of St. Luke and the genuine Pauline
epistles have in common 83 words which are not found
elsewhere in the gospels ; of these 32 also occur in
the Acts; but in addition to these there are about
Co words which only occur in the Acts and the genuine
Pauline epistles. These words common to St. Paul
and St. Luke, about 148 in number, well deserve a
more detailed investigation (fide the careful collec
tion in Plummer s " Commentary on St. Luke," 189C,
pp. liv. ss.).

274 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

From yet another point of view it is possible to
establish the affinity between the Lukan writings and
the Pauline epistles. Hawkins (Horce Synopticce, 1899,
pp. 1 ff.} has drawn up lists of words and phrases
characteristic of the three synoptists 86 for St.
Matthew, 37 for St. Mark, 140 for St. Luke. Of
the 86 characteristic of St. Matthew 46 are also
used by St. Paul (loc. cit. p. 155), of the 37 Markan
words St. Paul has 19, but of the 140 Lukan words
St. Paul has 94. We may then speak of a certain
kinship in style and vocabulary between St. Luke and
St. Paul it is not, however, very significant ; the
epistles which stand nearest to the Lukan writings
are those to the Colossians and Ephesians. Only the
most general and most important characteristics of
the teaching of St. Paul and the success of his preach
ing had really made deep impression upon St. Luke.
For the rest he was not spiritually nor intellectually
dependent, still less slavishly dependent, upon the
Apostle. He remained himself! The work of St.
Paul decided and influenced him far more strongly
than the personality of the Jew, whose character in
all its intensive grandeur had not fully disclosed
itself to him. And yet it was St. Luke that con
tinued with St. Paul, indeed was the only one to con
tinue with him ! And how can we find fault with
him, a genuine Hellene, for not fully comprehending
the genius of the Apostle.

EXCURSUS n 275

EXCURSUS II

ON THE PLAN OF THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE AND
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

In the Introduction we have already stated that
St. Luke could not form his type of narrative for the
Acts upon the type of his gospel as it was created
by St. Mark and developed by himself. The subject-
matter was too different ; so that St. Luke was obliged
to form for himself a new type. Yet in one point a
certain likeness prevails between the plans of the
two works. In his gospel St. Luke has arranged his
material under the headings : Jesus in Galilee ; Jesus
on His way from Galilee through Samaria, &c., to
Jerusalem ; Jesus in Jerusalem. In the Acts the
plan is analogous : the Gospel in Jerusalem ; the
Gospel on its way from Jerusalem through Samaria,
&c., into the Gentile World and to Rome ; the Gospel
in Rome. In both cases the progression within the
" KaOetys " is the chief consideration, and forms the
thread of the narrative.

Whilst the reader of the prologue to the gospel
receives exact information as to what he may expect
in the book (&lt;5n/y&gt;/cni&gt; irepi TCOV 7re7r\t]po(bopt]/u.va)v
ev rjiJ.iv TrpayjmaTwv according to the tradition of
the eye-witnesses of our Lord), no such summary
of the contents of the work is given in the Acts of
the Apostles (on the other hand, the contents of the
Gospel are yet again summarised in Acts i. 1 f,).

276 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

We must read as far as verse 8, where we already
find ourselves in the narrative itself, in order to learn
St. Luke^s aim in his second book. But that this
verse gives the programme of the book is only to be
discovered from the book itself, and not from the
form of the verse. It is the same with the con
clusion : the gospel comes to a solemn close, after
which one expects nothing more. But it is not at
once clear that the conclusion of the Acts is really
a conclusion indeed, judging from i. 8 (eeoy ea-^arov
T&gt;7? 7&gt;7?)&gt; one might expect a further continuation.
From this difference between the two books we are
scarcely justified in concluding that St. Luke did not
give the finishing touches to the Acts this is indeed
probable on other grounds , but we must rather recog
nise that the theme which St. Luke set himself in the
Acts was of a kind that it was difficult to summarise
in a short argument. In the Introduction we have
already defined this theme as follows : " The power
of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles, manifested in
expansion of the mission even to Rome, in the Con
version of the Gentile world, and in the hardening of
the heart of the Jewish nation." We at once see
that this theme was too unwieldly to be framed
within a short argument. It was probably for this
reason that St. Luke abstained from giving such an
argument, though the theme of the book was quite
distinctly formed in his mind and kept well in view
throughout the work.

EXCURSUS III 277

EXCURSUS III

ST. LUKE AND CHRISTIAN JOY

The high note of Christian Joy was, so far as we
know, first struck by St. Paul. He experienced, and
could proclaim as an experience, both " the joy in
the Lord " and " the joy in the Holy Spirit. 11 How
much he regarded joy as the necessary and constant
condition of the Christian is shown in many passages
of his writings, but above all in 2 Cor. i. 24 : avvepyoi
e&fjLev r7? \apu&lt;i vfjLwv. We cannot here go into the
question of the importance and the peculiar signifi
cance which this conception of joy has reached in the
Johannine literature.

In the ancient evangelic tradition, and in St. Mark
and St. Matthew, not very much of this joy is to be
traced. Apart from the references to the stern joy
because of persecutions (St. Matt. v. 12 ; St. Luke vi.
23), to the joy over the penitent (St. Matt, xviii. 13 ;
St. Luke xv. 5, 7, 10), and to the joy at the reception
of the Word (St. Mark iv. 16; St. Matt. xiii. 20,
44&lt;; St. Luke viii. 13) yet the latter is certainly
very important we can scarcely find another passage
of the kind.

It is otherwise with St. Luke. In his expression
of joy he speaks in unison with St. Paul and St. John.
Indeed in the New Testament it is in his writings
alone that we find the word evcfipocrvvrj as well as the
more usual words \apa and yaipeiv evtypaivecrOai is
more frequent with him than in all the other writings

278 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

of the New Testament taken together, and various
expressions for " joy " run through both his works.

The gospel begins with "joy" (joy of many over the
birth of St. John the Baptist, i. 14 ; " Behold, I bring
you tidings of great joy ; for to you is born this
day the Saviour," ii. 10), and with " joy " it closes (the
disciples are aTrio-Tovvres airo TW -^apus, xxiv. 41 ;
and they return to Jerusalem with great joy, xxiv. 52).
St. John leaps for joy in his mother s womb (i. 44),
Elizabeth rejoices eVJ TW 6e(p TU&gt; crcoTtjpi /JLOV (i. 47),
and our Lord rejoices in the Spirit in His Thanks
giving to the Father (x. 21). The seventy disciples
return from their mission with joy (x. 17), and are
taught in what they should rejoice and in what not
(x. 20). The people rejoice over all the glorious
actions of our Lord (xiii. 17), and the multitude of
the disciples rejoice with cries of praise at His entry
into Jerusalem (xix. 37). Zacchaeus rejoices because
he is allowed to entertain our Lord in his house
(xix. 6), and the whole second half of the parable
of the Prodigal Son is filled with joy (xv. 23, 24,

OQ OO\ 1
XV) OX/J.

It is the same in the Acts. In his first great
speech St. Peter quotes the joyous words (ii. 26, 28) :

1 From these passages, and from xii. 19 and xvi. 19, one sees that
St. Luke likes to connect, indeed almost exclusively connects,
fixppalveffddi. with the partaking of food. Just in the same way we
read in Acts xiv. 17 that God fills men s hearts with rpo&lt;J&gt;T) Kal
fiKppoffLtvrj (see also Acts vii. 41), and in Acts ii. 46: p-freKa^avov
Tpo&lt;t&gt;rjs tv a.ya\\idffti. St. Luke evidently had a feeling for the joy
that springs from the common festal meal, and regarded it also in
a religious light. These social meals tv &ya\\ia.&lt;rti /col &&amp;lt;pf\oTr)T
Aco/&gt;5iaj replace the ancient sacrificial feasts.

EXCURSUS III 279

Sia TOVTO tjv(f)pdv9i] /J.OV r/ KapSla Kcit ^yaXXtdo aTO 17
y\uxrcra /u.oo . . . TT^qpuxreis fte inppO(rvi&gt;t)s /xera TOV
-rrpoa-wTTou &lt;rov here we have an obvious parallel to
the Magnificat of Elizabeth, which also stands near
the beginning of the gospel. St. Peter s Sermon
results in the foundation of the Church, which hence
forth eats its bread ei/ ayaXXidaei (ii. 46). The
disciples come with joy from the Jewish tribunal (v.
41) ; great joy prevails among the converts of Samaria
(viii. 8) ; the baptized eunuch goes on his way rejoic
ing (viii. 39) ; St. Barnabas sees with joy the work of
the mission to the Gentiles in Antioch (xi. 29) ; the
Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch are glad because St. Paul
teaches that the word of Salvation was intended for
them (xiii. 48), and they are filled with great joy and
with the Holy Spirit (xiii. 52). St. Paul holds up as
the most striking instance of God s gracious Providence
the fact that He fills our hearts with food and glad
ness (xiv. 17). The reports given by St. Paul and
St. Barnabas of their success in Asia Minor fill the
brethren in Phoenicia and Samaria with great joy
(xv. 3), and the converted jailor in Philippi
&lt;raro TravoiKel TreTTiVTevKOOs TOO Oero (xvi. 34).

This joyous characteristic of the book, though
there is in it no want also of tears, is not only
important for our knowledge of St. Luke, but also
in conjunction with the testimony of St. Paul and
St. John (also of the First Epistle of St. Peter) for
the accurate knowledge of the temperament of the
Greek Christians of his times. Their sacred feasts
were feasts of joy, and those who were leaders in the
churches bestirred themselves to create and to pre-

280 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

serve among Christians the atmosphere of joy. Even if
this implied some forcing of the note, and even if the
purpose was stronger than the result though this
cannot be proved still the purpose must be specially
noted.

To Joy belongs Peace. In St. Paul (also in St.
John) they stand close together (vide Gal. v. 22 ;
Rom. xv. 13) ; God is the God of Peace (Rom. xv. 33 ;
xvi. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 9;
1 Thess. v. 23 ; and the formularies of greeting) ;
there is not only a peace of Christ (Col. iii. 15), but
Christ is our peace (Ephes. ii. 14), &c. In St. Mark
and St. Matthew nothing of the kind is to be found
on the contrary, we read in St. Matthew (x. 34): OVK
jjXOov fiaXeiv elpijvqv. It is otherwise with St. Luke.
The word occurs no less than twenty-one times in his
works. His gospel begins with the proclamation of
peace " as well as of joy (i. 79 ; ii. 14, 29), and the
greeting of peace (xxiv. 36) stands near its close.
Though St. Luke has also taken up into his work
the harsh-sounding saying against peace (xii. 51),
because he could not conscientiously pass it by, still
Christ is for him the bringer of peace (vide xix.
38), and so we read in the Acts (x. 36) : TOV \oyov
a7re(TTei\v TO?? vlois Io-pa&gt;]\ evayy e\i6/JLevo$ elp^vtjv
$ia Iqcrov Xoicrrou. In this respect also St. Luke has
imprinted upon his work an homogeneous character.

Finally, there is yet another word belonging to
this sphere of feeling and forming a bond between
St. Paul, St. John, and St. Luke I mean Trapprjcrla.
Though it is wanting in St. Luke s gospel, yet in the
Acts it occurs both at the beginning and at the close

EXCURSUS III 281

in most important passages ; in St. Paul it is found
seven times, in St. John thirteen times. The Acts
uses the word in ii. 29; iv. 13, 29, 31 (the two last
instances are important), and the book closes with
the record that in Rome St. Paul preached and taught
concerning the Lord Christ jmera Trda-qs Trapptjcrtus
aK(a\vTw? (with Truer/;? here compare iv. 29 and Phil. i.
20). Xo^oa, eipi]vrj ) 7rappt]&lt;ria, and in addition cram/D
and a-o)rt]pia the spiritual sphere characterised by
these words is common to the Pauline, Johannine,
and Lukan writings. With the ultimate origin of
these terms as denoting religious conceptions we are
not sufficiently acquainted ; but the question of the
origin of the terminology is of secondary importance.
The terminology could only be accepted when men
had the thing itself, and the thing itself was not
imported but was a fact of Christian experience.

EXCURSUS IV

ST. LUKE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY FROM
THE RELIGION OF A JEWISH SECT TO A UNIVERSAL
RELIGION

When one speaks of the development of Christianity
from the religion of a Jewish sect to a universal
religion, one at once thinks of St. Paul, and rightly so.
He not only laboured more than the rest, but he also
realised the opposition between the religion of the
Old Testament and the Gospel in its profundity.

But one must also recollect the limitations which
must be drawn here. St. Paul was not the first to

282 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

begin the mission to the Gentiles the real origi
nators were anonymous men of Cyprus and Cyrene ;
he allowed that the Law remained in force for the
Jewish Christians, provided only that they did not be
lieve that righteousness was gained by keeping it ; and,
what is more, he taught that a special role was reserved
for the nation of Israel, that the promises given to it
would still be fulfilled, and that the time would come
when " all Israel will be saved." 11 In this sense he
remained a Jewish Christian. Lastly, though his
demonstration of universalism and of the abrogation
of the Law is most profound, it is also most difficult
to comprehend. Scarcely any one understood it, and
it did not make its way into the thought of the
Churches. St. Paul always regarded the question as
a problem a problem capable indeed of solution
yet still to be solved ; and so long as a man regards
important principles as being still problems, he will
not be able to commend his thought to others. Only
trivial truths are successful. A thought in which
there is still something to be thought out has no
prospect of being widely accepted.

Thus the teaching and the procedure of St. Paul
left much to be desired. Ought a Jewish Christendom
to be left in continuous existence side by side with
Universal Christendom ? Must not its simple exist
ence exert a perplexing and disturbing influence ?
Could a special Hope for Israel Kara crdpica be re
cognised side by side with the general Hope of all
Christians ? Must it not appear a gigantic paradox
that for this nation, in spite of the Divine sentence
of hardening of heart, there should yet be reserved a

EXCURSUS IV 283

special promise in the Kingdom of God ? Finally
was it possible that the appalling contradiction which
lies in the Pauline criticism of the Law could have
been allowed to stand ? Could one believe at one
and the same time that the Law in its verbal mean
ing was Divine and holy, but that the Gentile Chris
tian who kept it denied Christ ? !

Three points were here in question the Laze, the
judgment to be passed upon the Jewish nation, and
the property in the Old Testament as a whole. On
all these points the attitude which St. Paul had
adopted seemed unsatisfactory. Things must be
carried further. The only satisfactory element was
the fait accompli universalism, and freedom from
the yoke of the Law. But the necessary consequences
did not seem to have been yet drawn by St. Paul.

In regard to the Law the Gentile Christians
could not arrive at complete peace of mind until
the allegorical method of interpretation became de
cisive. Men could not believe that they were really
freed from the Law until it was recognised that
the import of the Law was the same as that of the
Gospel, and that the ceremonial ordinances could all
be spiritually interpreted.

In respect to the Jezcish people, there could be no
settlement of mind until it was recognised that the
nation was not only now subject to the sentence of
hardening, but that it had never possessed any pro
mises for all the promises of the Old Testament
referred to the new nation and that it therefore
had absolutely nothing more to expect from God in
the future.

284 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Lastly, in regard to the Old Testament, there
could be no satisfaction until absolutely every
kind of claim that the Jews might advance to
its possession was disproved, and it was clearly
shown that the book belonged exclusively to the
Christians.

In the writings of the Apologists, and in the Epistle
of Barnabas, these points of view have been already
reached. Between them and the Doctrine of St.
Paul as the starting-point, we can distinguish stages
of development. In regard to the question of the
nation of Israel, these stages have been briefly sketched
above on pp. xxv. s. What station in this process of
development may now be assigned to the writings of
St. Luke ?

Let us at once say one tliat is still very ancient, one
that by no means coincides with that of St. Paul, yet
is of equal standing with it in point of age, and
is more archaistic than that of " St. John," to say
nothing of " Barnabas " and the Apologists.

As for the Law, he has an extraordinarily high
opinion of its importance for the Jew by birth. From
the first leaf of his gospel he shows this. The Jew s
pious observance of the Law is witli him a thing
worthy of the highest honour (cf. Elizabeth and
Zacharias, &c.). People who were to be found daily
in the Temple are to him worthy of reverence, and it
appears to him most praiseworthy that the members
of the early Church were so conscientious in their
visits thither. It has also his full approval that
St. Paul behaved himself as a pious Jew, both in
Jerusalem and elsewhere. The Law according to St.

EXCURSUS IV 285

Luke maintains its authority among Jews, whether
Christian or non-Christian. This he makes St. James
say expressly. No one ought to offend against the
Temple and the Law ; St. Paul also had never done
this (Acts xxv. 8). It appears to have been other
wise in the case of St. Stephen, but St. Luke evidently
takes the speech which he had not drafted him
self in such a way that its point lies in the announce
ment of the future downfall of the Temple. This was
a thing that St. Luke could not pass over, because it
had been prophesied by our Lord Himself. As for
St. Stephen s reference to a change in the customs
delivered by Moses, St. Luke understood this to mean
that now, seeing that the Jews had hardened their
hearts, Salvation would pass over to those who were
not bound to observe the Law ; for with those who
were Gentiles by birth the Law and Circumcision
were not in force as St. Luke had learned from St.
Paul. Yet it was still clearly recognised by St. Luke
that this view and the ultimate recognition of Gentile
freedom from the Law were arrived at by a process
of historical development which he seeks to investigate
and to describe to his readers (ride supra, pp. xxvi. Jf.).
But though St. Luke acknowledges that the Law was
not in force for Gentiles by birth, he does not by
any means therefore imply that the Law possessed
no saving power. It is true that he not only appro
priated the Pauline doctrine of Universalism, but also
the Pauline doctrine of Justification. Yet in sharp
contrast with St. Paul he regarded the latter doctrine
as only complementary , at least for Jews by birth.
The Gentiles must trust in Justification by Faith

286 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

alone, 1 but for the Jews this doctrine was only neces
sary in so far as they fell short of the fulfilment of
the Law, and therefore, beside and apart from the Law,
still required the forgiveness of sins in order to be
quite righteous (xiii. 38, 39). On the whole St. Luke,
though himself a Gentile, stands nearer than St. Paul
to the Law we may therefore also call his attitude
more primitive ; for it is certainly not to be regarded
as reactionary, but as the reflexion of the historical
conditions of a time when the Jewish Christians still
played a very important part, and when the Gentile
Christians had not yet lost their reverence for the
religio antiqua, and had not yet arrived at a distinct
self-consciousness of their own in the face of Judaism.
Though St. Luke may even give an allegorical inter
pretation of a passage in the Law, he still regards Law,
Temple, and Vow as what they really were, and he values
them as such very highly.

This position of his becomes still more clear as we
consider his attitude towards the Jewish nation. He
took over from St. Paul the theory of the predeter
mined hardening of the heart of the Jewish nation,
and he seems here to have gone further than St.
Paul, since he does not repeat the Pauline thought
that still at last TTCI? IcrpaqX crwOtja-eTai. But upon
closer consideration it will be seen that his judgment
of the Jewish people is not sterner than that of
St. Paul. In the first place, the disparaging " 01
lovSaioi " of " St. John " is found very rarely in his
writings, though it is already coming into use with

1 Yet also this may be disputed with reference to x. 35 (iv travrl
(popovpfvos airrbv Kal tpya6n(i&gt;os 8iKaioffvvT)v dfKrfa aiirif iffriv).

EXCURSUS IV 287

St. Paul. In spite of the theory of " final harden
ing," St. Luke does not regard the Jews as a massa
proditionis et perditionis, but differentiates between
them according to their natural and spiritual quali
ties (vide supra, pp. xxiii.j^.). Again, passages like St.
Luke i. 72-79 ; ii. 31, 32, &c., show that he conceived
of the Gospel as the " consolation of Israel," and that
he recognised in it a twofold function : it both ful
filled the promises given to the people of Abraham /caret
a-dpita, and it was a light to the Gentiles. 1 If St. Luke
held this view of the Gospel it necessarily follows that
a thought like that of Rom. xi. 25 ff. could not have
been so very far from him, or that he at least
cherished similar thoughts. According to him, St.
Paul contended for the Resurrection as for a hope that
was common to both Jews and Christians. Above
all, we must once again (vide supra, pp. 50 /.) point
out that " o Xao? " (6 Xao? TOV 6eov) is for St. Luke
the Jewish nation. Before his eyes Christendom stands
in two camps still, indeed, separate from one another
first the Jewish people, that is, the pious Israelites wlio
had accepted Jesus as the I^ord ; secondly, the eOvq, who
had been afterwards called to the standard? This
Gentile Christian author is still very retiring, and his
self-consciousness as a Gentile Christian is still un
developed. He is certain that he and his fellow

1 The canticles in St. Luke i. ii. are, in vocabulary, style, and
thought, the property of St. Luke. If, however, it is thought that
he received them from elsewhere, we can prove from other passages
in the Lukan writings that these conceptions are Lukan.

1 St. Luke nowhere regards Jewish and Gentile Christians as
bound together in such unity as is pictured in the Epistle to tho
Ephesians. Their separation from one another does not disturb him.

288 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Gentiles have been freed from the observance of the
Law ; he knows that the great majority of the Jewish
nation have fallen under the sentence of final har
dening " ; but he feels that only the more respect is
due to those Jews who, while observing the Law,
believed in Christ. They are " the nation " for whom,
in the first place, all the promises have been and are
being fulfilled, and their observaiio kgis is for him an
object of admiration.

This attitude of St. Luke towards the Law and
the Jewish nation x reflects very early conceptions,
and expresses historical relations which existed at the
time of St. Paul, but can scarcely have continued
much later. Hitherto this has not been clearly
recognised, rather the standpoint of St. Luke has
been obscured by all kinds of distorting theories.
These theories all proceed a priori from the assump
tion that St. Luke s point of view can only be regarded
as a stage in the development of post-Pauline doc
trine. Hence we hear of compromises between Jewish
and Gentile Christianity which may be discerned in
these writings, or of a Gentile Christianity which had
" already " absorbed Jewish Christianity and so modi
fied itself, &c. But the real situation is much simpler.
In these writings we must recognise a position parallel
with that of St. Paul, just such a position as must
have been taken up by a Christian Greek of the
earliest period ; one who was more humane but also

1 After what has been already said there is no need of a special
discussion of St. Luke s attitude towards the Old Testament. It is
now self-evident that he never doubted that this book had been
given to and belonged to the Jewish nation. In that the Gentiles
are called, they take a share in the inheritance of the nation.

EXCURSUS IV 289

more superficial than St. Paul one who, with ah 1 his
universalism, could yet feel a respect for the Jewish Law
as well as for the Jewish religion, and more especially
could regard devout Jewish Christians with an esteem
and reverence such as the Apostle, who had recognised
that Christ was the end of the Law, could no longer
bring himself to feel. All that remained to St. Paul
for his own nation he casts into the future (a^ot? ov
TO TrXrwwfJLo. TWV 0va&gt;i&gt; etVA.00), while St. Luke, who
had never experienced the terror of the Law, stands
full of reverence before the antlqua religio.

Gentile Christendom advanced in self-consciousness
far beyond the standpoint of St. Luke, indeed even
of " St. John." J In the interests of its own self-
preservation it allegorised the Law, declaring that the
verbal sense was a deception of the devil, or was a
penal and disciplinary ordinance devoid of blessing
and promise ; it delivered the Jewish nation to Satan
and the daemons, and claimed the Old Testament
with all the promises and with all the patriarchs,
men of God, and prophets exclusively for itself. 2 But
this attitude did not remain final in the Church;
rather since the end of the second century it experi
enced forcible modification. The great conflict with
Gnosticism and Marcionitism compelled the Church
to attend to the verbal sense of the Old Testament,

1 For " St. John " the statement : i] &lt;rom;pio in TUV
tffrlv still held good.

* This development was assisted by the enduring and increasing
enmity of the Jews, by the numerical weakness of the Jewish
Christians, and by the destruction of the Temple, the capital city,
and the Jewish people as a nation.

290 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

and to restore to it its rightful position. If the verbal
sense were to be finally given up by the Church, the
consequence that would be drawn by her dangerous
opponents namely, the rejection of the whole book
was too obvious. But when the Church again re
quired of its members that they should attend to the
verbal sense, indeed even regard it as divine, and
seeing that they could not appropriate to themselves
the difficult teaching of St. Paul, St. Lukes way of
thinking came again to their aid. In fact, we see
that the great early Fathers of the Church above
all, Irenaeus in the long chapters of Book iii., where
he follows the Acts walk in the very footsteps of
St. Luke; with them the religion of the Old Testa
ment is holy and good, the Law even in its verbal
sense, and although it was a legislatio in servitutem, is
right and good ; the saints of the Old Testament are
worthy of reverence, &c. Of course the high esteem
in which St. Luke held the Jewish Christians as the
ancient people of God never returned the time for
this had passed away ; but in all other directions it
was St. Luke, the Hellene of the first ages, who
marked out the paths by which the theologians and
historians of the Church approached the problem
of the relation between Universalism and the Old
Testament.

EXCURSUS V

THE DATE OF THE ACTS

The following remarks are not intended actually to
commend the earliest date for the composition of the

EXCURSUS V 291

Acts, but to warn critics against a too hasty closing
of the chronological question. It is well known how
quickly hypotheses that are questionable and bur
dened with the greatest difficulties such, for example,
as the hypothesis that Rom. xvi. is an epistle, or part
of an epistle, to Ephesus have arrived at even un
questioned recognition.

In my Chronologic der altchristl. Litt., I. (1897),
s. 246-250, 718, 1 have produced the reasons in favour
of the hypothesis that the Acts was not composed
before the year A.D. 78. They reduce themselves to
three in number all the rest are not of great weight,
to say nothing of being convincing : (1) The prologue
of St. Luke s gospel seems to demand that at least
half a century should have elapsed since the death of
Jesus ; (2) the gospel with its detailed prophecies
concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple seems to presuppose that the catastrophe of
the year A.D. 70 had already occurred moreover, the
omission by St. Luke of the warning : o avayiyvuxrKGw
voeirw (St. Mark xiii. 14 ; St. Matt. xxiv. 15) suggests
that the fulfilment itself already lay before men^s
eyes ; (3) the legends concerning the appearances of
the Risen Christ and the Ascension are difficult to
explain, on the assumption that they arose before the
destruction of Jerusalem.

Of these three arguments the second and third are
weighty, while the first upon closer consideration is
only of quite slight importance. Unfortunately we
know absolutely nothing, nor can we form a con
jecture as to how many, even at the earliest period,
wrote concerning the " irfjr\t]po(poptjneva ev tjfj.iv Trody-

292 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

/zara," nor when this literary activity began. Why
must we suppose that the wording of the prologue
necessitates the lapse of a period of fifty years ?
Would not about thirty-three years be sufficient ?
Just as to-day in reference to the restoration of the
German Empire one could write : " Since many
have undertaken to describe this restoration /ca$o)9
irapeSotrav niJ.lv ol air apxys ai/TOirTai yei&gt;6ju.ei&gt;oi, &c.,"
so also an author even at the beginning of the seventh
decade of the first century could have written con
cerning the history of Jesus. And even if yevd/mevoi
is pressed, no difficulty arises ; for even after the lapse
of only thirty years the great majority of the eye
witnesses of events are no longer alive. We must
therefore dispense with the argument derived from
the prologue. There remain only the destruction
of Jerusalem and the above-mentioned legends ; for
the arguments that are derived from the conception
one forms of the inward development of things are
quite unsafe, and therefore inadmissible, so long as the
chronological question remains unsolved. But if it
is pointed out that the idea that St. Luke wrote, so
to say, under the eyes of St. Paul is hampered with
psychological difficulties, it must be of course admitted
that this is undeniable ; but seeing that we can form
no accurate conception of the relations between these
two great men, it is a precarious proceeding to appeal
to such difficulties. 1

1 If stress is laid upon the difficulties involved in the hypothesis
that St. Luke wrote as a personal acquaintance of St. Paul, and
even during the lifetime of the Apostle but not under his eyes it
is only necessary to point, in the first place, to the memorabilia
concerning great men of antiquity, which were confessedly written

EXCURSUS V 293

What, then, is to be said in favour of the Acts
(and therefore also of the gospel) having been already
written at the beginning of the seventh decade of the
first century. There are, in my opinion, the following
very weighty considerations :

(1) The great difficulty presented by the conclusion
of the Acts is undoubtedly removed in the simplest
way if St. Luke wrote his work soon after the two
years which St. Paul spent in Rome, and thus while
the Apostle was still alive. 1 We can also explain
away this difficulty on other hypotheses (vide supra,
pp. 38^!) for it must be explained ! but none of
them are quite satisfactory or very illuminating.

(2) The discrepancy of the passage, Acts xx. 25 :
" Ye will see my face no more " (cf. xx. 38), with
the genuine information given in 2 Timothy is thus

by their disciples or acquaintances. Does any one deny that Xeno-
phon was personally acquainted with Socrates because his Memora
bilia is such a defective work and betrays so little of the spirit of
the great thinker ? Or does any one deny such acquaintance to
Plato because he has so drawn the portrait of Socrates with such
freedom in his dialogues ? Or must we refuse to ascribe the Life
of Constantine to Eusebius because it contains much that is of
questionable authority concerning the emperor? Need I even
mention the case of Sulpicius Severus and Martin of Tours, or of
Athanasius and Anthony ?

1 I do see see that in any passage of the book St. Peter and St.
Paul are so treated that we may presume that they were already
dead ; rather the contrary. In xi. 24 we read of St. Barnabas : Sri
Jj v O.VTIP dyaObs Kal irX-i^s irvevfj.arot aylov. It seems, therefore, to be
presupposed that he was already dead. But even this inference is
unsafe; compare xxi. 9: $t\liriry ^&lt;rav Ouyartpes Ttaaaptt. It has
been remarked above on p. 41 that the Acts could not have been
written at the close of the ditria spoken of in the last verse; but
the book could very well have been composed after these two years
had elapsed, and before the death of the Apostle in Rome.

294 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

explained. St. Luke allows St. Paul to say, or St.
Paul said, something about his future which after
wards proved to be incorrect. St. Luke, when he
wrote, could not as yet have known that it was an
incorrect prophecy.

(3) In the Acts the Jews never appear as oppressed
and persecuted, but rather as the persecutors. This
seems to me a very weighty argument ! How comes
it that the terrible events which befell this nation
since the second half of the seventh decade, and which
also affected the Diaspora, have left absolutely no
trace of themselves in this historical work ? The
Jews both in Jerusalem and in the Diaspora are
the beati possidentes! How remarkable it is that a
vivacious story-teller like St. Luke should remain so
" objective " that, simply because he is dealing with
the times before A.D. 66, he gives no hint of the tre
mendous change that came with the year A.D. 70 !
Though in xi. 28 he expressly notices that the pro
phecy of the famine was actually fulfilled in the reign
of Claudius ; yet this historian nowhere says that the
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled,
and though at the close of his work he casts in the
teeth of the Jews the prophecy of Isaiah concerning
" the hardening of their hearts," yet he does not
think of referring to the terrible judgment that had
actually come upon the nation.

(4) But even in the case of the gospel, under the
assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem had
already taken place, by no means everything is quite
clear. With the prophecy of this destruction St.
Luke, like the other synoptists, still combines the

EXCURSUS V 295

proclamation of the great Final Catastrophe (xxi.
25 jf.), of convulsions of the heavenly bodies, and of
the Coming of the Son of Man (xxi. 27, 28), and brings
all this to a conclusion with the words (xxi. 32) :
Aeyco vfjttv OTI ov fj.rj TrapeXOy f] yevea. aurt] ecop av
yevrjrat ! Are we then to suppose that the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, which had been followed by none
of these events, was for the author a thing of the past ?
The supposition is exceedingly difficult ! Again he
repeats the direction (xxi. 21) : Tore 01 ev 777 ^lovSaia
(bewyeTw&av e/? TO. opt] yet the Christians, as is
well known, did not flee to the mountains, but to
Pella, and so in later days a special command from
Heaven was invented in order to explain the discre
pancy of this conduct with the original command.
There is also much else in the great eschatological
discourse that is more easily intelligible if it were
written before the destruction of Jerusalem than on
the contrary assumption ; and the omission of 6 ava-
yiyvwa-Kwv voeiToo may be due to the circumstance that
St. Luke did not intend his work for public reading.

(5) The fact that no use is made of the Pauline
epistles in the Acts is easily intelligible about the
beginning of the seventh decade, it is not so about
A.D. 80, and the later the date the more unintelligible
it becomes.

(6) In his use of the word " Christ," St. Luke is
even more primitive than St. Paul ; in the Lukan writ
ings it has not yet become a proper name, but every
where means " the Messiah " ; the name " Christians "
(otherwise than in the First Epistle of St. Peter, vide
supra) is not yet applied by Christians to them selves, and

296 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

the " nomen Christianum " as such is not yet proscribed
(as it must already have been in the Flavian period).
There are, besides, certain delicate terminological
traits which seem to point to a high antiquity, 1 as well
as the primitive standpoint adopted in the treatment
of Judaism and Jewish Christianity (vide pp. 281^".).
These are, so far as I see, the most important
arguments for the composition of the Acts at the
beginning of the seventh decade. On the other side
unless prejudice or " critical intuition," things that
we, of course, cannot search into, are brought into
play we have simply the considerations that the
prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem
coincides in some remarkable points with what really
happened, and that the accounts of the appearances
of the Risen Christ and the legend of the Ascension
are scarcely intelligible on the assumption that they
arose before the destruction of Jerusalem. 2 A deci-

1 Among these traits I reckon the absence of the title " 6 /3a&lt;rt-
Xerfs " for the emperor (vide supra, p. 36) ; the use of the name " oi
/j.a6r)Tal " for the Christians (not used even by St. Paul) as the more
solemn and ceremonious term (vide supra, p. 265) ; the application of
the designation 6 Xaos [TOV Oeov] exclusively to the Jewish nation,
not to the Christians (vide supra, pp. 50/.) ; the fact that ira.poi.Kia. and
wdpotKos have not acquired a technical significance, the as yet
undeveloped conception of the Church (vide " Luke the Physician,"
pp. 34 /".), and much else.

2 Here, however, we are ought to forget that in reference to the
origin of these legends we are destitute of the help of any accom
panying tradition, and are left simply to considerations of proba
bility, which at all events are not in favour of an early date. A
further great difficulty lies outside the Lukan writings, but at once
announces itself. Is it possible that the Gospel of St. Mark, the
source of St. Luke, could have been already written about the year
A,D. 60 this would be the latest date on the assumption of the
earlier date for St. Luke ? I cannot here enter into this question.

EXCURSUS V 297

sion here is difficult. These remarks, which contain
scarcely anything that is new, though much that has
not been sufficiently considered, are only intended to
help a doubt to its just dues. It is not difficult to
judge on which side lies the greater weight of argu
ment ; but we must remember that in such cases of
doubt the more far-reaching are the effects of definite
decision the greater is the demand for caution. There
fore, for the present, we must be content to say :
St. Luke wrote at the time of Titus or in the earlier years
of Domitian, but perhaps even so early as the beginning
of the seventh decade ofthejirst century. The political
rule : Qideta non movere " does not hold good for
science. She must therefore determine also to submit
this question to fresh investigation or if convincing
arguments are wanting *,o leave it open.

CONCLUSION

THE truth of the description of the characteristics of
the Acts of the Apostles which I have given in the
first pages of these investigations is, I hope, proved.
The book has now been restored to the position of
credit which is its rightful due. It is not only taken
as a whole a genuinely historical work, 1 but even in
the majority of its details it is trustworthy. Except
for a few panegyric aberrations in the direction of
the Primitive Community, it follows no bias that
distorts its representation of the actual course of

1 According to von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , Die griech, Literatur
des Altertums, s. 188 /., " The Acts of the Apostles has as little inten
tion of being history as the Res yestce divi Augusti. A record is
given of "Acts" in which the supernatural mission of a hero was
revealed ; with a god they would have been aperal. We possess
the Acts of Heracles graven in stone ; we may compare the
legends of St. Francis." It seems to me that this piece of criticism
may serve as a warning against the too hasty subsuming of ancient
Christian literature under the same category as the general Greek
literature of the same period. While attending exclusively to the
points in which the two appear to be similar, the critic shuts his
eyes to the points in which they differ, and by his demonstration
of real or supposed analogies obliterates the peculiar characteristics
of ancient Christian literature. This is not what von Wilamowitz
has done elsewhere ; cf. his excellent review of the characteristics
of St. Paul and St. John. Certainly St. Luke, in higher measure
than these, invites illustration of his work by comparison with the
contemporary literature ; but by this means we are only brought
into little closer touch with the objects, the character, and the
essential value of his work.

293

CONCLUSION 299

events, and its author had sufficient knowledge to
justify him in coming forward as an historian. Judged
from almost every possible standpoint of historical
criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects
an extraordinary work ; and its author s courage is
also extraordinary the courage with which he ap
proaches the task of describing the complicated history
of a religious movement still in process of most active
development. The talent of personal characterisation
was certainly wanting to the author; miracles and
supernatural cures so fascinated him that he practi
cally dispensed himself from all profounder considera
tion of the inner life of his characters. Neither is
this to be wondered at. In these workers of miracles
nothing seemed so great as the very fact that they
worked miracles, that they possessed this gift, that
the Divine power had become their own. What
value in comparison could be assigned to the personal
qualities of these men, however rich tuoir characters
might have been ? All these things necessarily paled
in the light of that tremendous gift !

If the results that we have arrived at are correct,
it will be necessary to revise no small portion of the
history of the Apostolic Age as it is related by critics
of to-day. A work like Weizsiicker s " Apostolic
Age," with its thorough-going depreciation of, indeed
contempt for, the Acts of the Apostles, will need
correction in many chapters. Moreover, we now
learn that St. Paul ought no longer to be judged
so exclusively by his own works. This has been done
by critics since Baur with a self-confident exclusive-
ness such as they are not accustomed to show when

300 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

dealing with the autobiographical notices of other
heroes especially in letters. For their mistrust of
the Acts they had, of course, the very best excuse
that could be given : they possessed no other sources !
But even because of this indeed still more because
of this in dealing with the epistles of the Apostle
as the sole authorities for his history, they ought to
have treated these with more caution and with more
elasticity of judgment, and above all, with a greater
sense of proportion and with more impartiality in
regard to all the traits which appear therein. Here
the work of Weinel on St. Paul forms an honourable
exception ; it would be difficult to name a work in
which these necessary critical qualities are more bril
liantly displayed. But even his representation would
have gained if he had placed more dependence upon
the Acts. St. Paul was not so " Pauline " if I may
venture the word as his biographers would have us
think. This has been already shown by Weinel, but
we may and must go a step further. The Apostle
will lose nothing thereby : the man who did the most
to deliver the faith in God and in Christ from the
fetters of Judaism, who recognised the Gospel as a
new stage in the development of religion, superior to
the earlier Revelation, and who conceived it both in
his thought and his life as a religion of the Spirit
and of Freedom he has nothing to fear from any cor
rection of the impression men have formed of him.
And even if he had, criticism would have no right
to trouble itself about such consequences.

The process of crystallisation of the primitive
Christian tradition in the Acts, where it deals with

CONCLUSION 301

the appearances of the Crucified and the events which
immediately followed, lies entirely within the charmed
circle of a legend whose development was almost in
comprehensibly speedy. Yet the sacred historian ex
traordinarily quickly extricates himself from the bonds
of enchantment. He at first walks upon quaking
ground, but soon finds firm footing and, thanks to
his sources and his own personal experience, up to
the end of his course he never again, or only seldom,
loses it. Thus in the Acts he has created an historical
work which upon the whole gives a correct representa
tion of the actual development of events. But he
has done much more than this ! In that he has set
this historical work side by side with his gospel as a
second and equally important part of one and the
same work, he laid the foundation both of the New
Testament and of that reverence for the Apostolic
side by side with the Evangelic, from which arose the
conception of Apostolic tradition. It is true that St.
Peter, and above all St. Paul himself, laid the deepest
foundation for this reverence. But if these heroes
had found no historian, it is highly probable that in
spite of Marcion we should have had no New Testa
ment ; for in the Catholic Church the combination
of the isolated Pauline epistles with the Gospel would
have been an impossibility. Accordingly St. Luke is
really the creator of the New Testament, and in the
same sense the creator of the Apostolic, side by side
with the Evangelic tradition.

In conclusion, I owe an explanation to Professor
Blass (lately deceased), and to Professors It am say,

302 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Weiss, and Zahn. The results at which I have
arrived not only approach very nearly to, but are
often coincident with, the results of their research.
The conclusion will be at once drawn that in my
case as in theirs there is little prospect of claiming
the attention of critics, and compelling them to re
consider their position. So it may actually happen
to be. But the cases present points of difference.
These scholars are influenced partly by prepossessions
in reference to the Canon of the New Testament,
partly by the conviction that miracles really happened,
partly by both these prejudices. This attitude of
theirs has most unfortunately rendered their research
and their demonstrations subject to suspicion, even in
those points that have nothing to do with the afore
said prepossessions. In the history of the criticism
of the New Testament an Apologetic with a dogmatic
bias has always promoted radicalism, or has at least
made critics deaf to proofs. This is just the effect
that it has had upon its opponents in the case of
the Acts. They were led to imagine that every
thing must be cleared away, and thus together with
what is worthless they cast from them traditions
that are certainly historical and information that is
most valuable. To make matters worse, Blass went
on to insult the work that had been hitherto done
by the critical school, though at the same time he
betrayed a very slight conception of deeper historical
questions ; again Ramsay set his clear eye, his powers
of picturesque description, and his great learning,
at the service of a method which seeks to extract
from the sources more than is really in them; while

CONCLUSION 303

Zahn cannot efface the impression that he conducts
historical investigations like a counsel for the defence
a tout prix. Moreover, all these scholars, and those
allied with them, showed little sense of the debt we
owe to Baur and his followers, of the deepening of
our insight into historical questions, and the broaden
ing of our outlook that have been brought about by
their labours. Thus it is that the criticism of the
Acts of the Apostles has arrived at the position in
which it now stands. This book may perhaps suc
ceed in effecting some alteration, and in bringing the
opposing camps nearer to one another. Perhaps it
will at last be seen that criticism, after its long and
painful exertions, must return to the occupation of
positions that it has deserted. These exertions were
certainly not fruitless, but they sought to facilitate
the solution of difficult historical problems by extend
ing the periods of time traditionally assigned to the
processes of historical development, by the rejection
of some traditional authorities, and by the analysis of
others into various sources a method well known,
very popular, and quite justifiable in every branch of
historical criticism whenever there is absolutely no
other way out of a difficulty ! In this case, however,
the witness of the source in most points, and those
essential points, stands the test of reliability, and on
this assumption the historical problems admit of a
solution which does no violence to probability.

A Catalogue

Williams & Norgate s

Publications

Divisions of the Catalogue

PAGE

I. THEOLOGY . . . . . . . . 2

II. PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY ... . . .28

III. ORIENTAL LANGUAGES, LITERATURE, AND HISTORY . 33

IV. PHILOLOGY, MODERN LANGUAGES . . . . 38
V. SCIENCE, MEDICINE, CHEMISTRY, ETC. ... 44

VI. BIOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY, LITERATURE, MISCEL
LANEOUS . . ... . . .55

GENERAL INDEX OF TITLES AND A UTHORS 61

For Full List and Particulars of Educational Works,
see separate Catalogue.

London
Williams & Norgate

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, W.C.

I. Theology and Religion.

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY.

IRevv Series.

A Series of Translations by which the best results of recent Theological
Investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference to doctrinal
considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at the truth, are
placed -within reach of English readers.

Vols. I. -XII. were edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D.,
Oriel Professor of Interpretation in the University of Oxford, Canon
of Rochester; and the late Rev. A. B. Bruce, D. D., Professor of
Apologetics, Free Church College, Glasgow.

Vol. XIII. was edited by Rev. Allan Menzies, D. D., Professor of
Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University, St Andrews.

Vols. XV., XVII., XVIII., and XXI.-XXVI. are edited by Rev.
W. D. Morrison, M.A., LL.D.

Vols. XIX. and XX. are edited by Rev. James Moffatt, B.D. ,
D. D., St Andrews.

The Price of Vols. I.-XXI. is IDS. 6d. ;
Vol. XXII. and after, los. 6d. net.

Subscribers to the Series obtain three volumes for 22S. 6d. carriage
free, payable before publication, which only applies to the current year s
volumes, viz., XXV.-XXVIL, which are as follows.

Vol. XXV. Almost Ready. los. 6d. net.

ETHICS OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By Theodor Haering,
Professor of New Testament Dogmatics and Ethics at Tubingen.

Vol. XXVI.

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY: Its Writings and Teach
ings in their Historical Connections. By Otto Pfleiderer, of
Berlin. Vol. II. The Historical Books.

The third volume completing this subscription has not yet been decided
upon.

The following Volumes are published at los. 6d. net.

Vol. XXII. Ready. los. 6d. net.

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY, Vol. I. : Its Writings and
Teachings in their Historical Connections. By Otto Pfleiderer,
Professor of Practical Theology in the University of Berlin.

Vol. XXIII. Ready. los. 6d. net.

THE INTRODUCTION TO THE CANONICAL BOOKS
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Carl Cornill, Professor
of Old Testament Theology at the University of Breslau.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 3

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY Continued.

Vol. XXIV. Ready. IDS. 6d. net.

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. By Hans von Schubert, Pro
fessor of Church History at Kiel. Translated from the Second
German Edition. By arrangement with the author, an Additional
Chapter has been added on "Religious Movements in England in
the Nineteenth Century," by Miss Alice Gardner, Lecturer and
Associate of Newnham College, Cambridge.

The following- Volumes are published at IDS. 6d. per Volume,
excepting Vols. XIX. and XX.

Vol. XXI.

ST. PAUL: The Man and his Work. By Prof. H. Weinel of
the University of Jena. Translated by Rev. G. A. Bienemann,
M.A. Edited by Rev. W. D. Morrison, M.A., LL.D.

" Prof. Weinel may be described as the Dean Farrar of Germany ; the work
is quite equal to Dean Farrar s work on the same subject. In some respects it
is better." Daily News.

Vols. XIX. and XX.

THE MISSION AND EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY
IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. By Adolf
Harnack, Ordinary Professor of Church History in the University,
and Fellow of the Royal Academy of the Sciences, Berlin.
Second, revised and much enlarged edition, 2$s. net.

Vol. XVIII.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. By
Ernst von Dobschiitz, D. D., Professor of New Testament Theology
in the University of Strassburg. Translated by Rev. G. Bremner,
and edited by the Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D.

" It is only in the very best English work that we meet with the scientific
thoroughness and all-round competency of which this volume is a good speci
men ; while such splendid historical veracity and outspokenness would hardly
be possible in the present or would-be holder of an English theological chair."
Dr RASHDALL in The Speaker.

Vol. XVI.

THE RELIGIONS OF AUTHORITY AND THE RE
LIGION OF THE SPIRIT. By the late Auguste Sabatier,
Professor of the University of Paris, Dean of the Protestant Theo
logical Faculty. With a Memoir of the Author by Jean Reville,
Professor in the Protestant Theological Faculty of the University
of Paris, and a Note by Madame Sabatier.

"Without any exaggeration, this is to be described as a great book, the
finest legacy of the author to the Protestant Church of France and to the theo
logical thought of the age. Written in the logical and lucid style which is
characteristic o( the best French theology, and excellently translated, it is a
work which any thoughtful person, whether a professional student or not,
might read without difficulty." Glasgow Herald.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY-Continued.
Vols. XV. and XVII.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. By Paul Wernle,
Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the Uni
versity of Basel. Revised by the Author, and translated by the
Rev. G. A. Bienemann, M.A. , and edited, with an Introduction,
by the Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D.

Vol. I. The Rise of the Religion.

Vol. II. The Development of the Church.

Dr. Marcus Dods in the British Weekly " We cannot recall any work by
a foreign theologian which is likely to have a more powerful influence on the
thought of this country than Wernle s Beginnings of Christianity. It is well
written and well translated ; it is earnest, clear, and persuasive, and above all
it is well adapted to catch the large class of thinking men who are at present
seeking some non-miraculous explanation of Christianity."

The Earlier Works included in the Library are :

HISTORY OF DOGMA. By Adolf Harnack, Berlin. Translated
from the Third German Edition. Edited by the Rev. Prof. A.
B. Bruce, D.D. 7 vols. (New Series, Vols. II., VII., VIII., IX.,
X., XI., XII.) 8vo, cloth, each loj. 6J. ; half-leather, suitable for
presentation, 12s. 6d.

ABBREVIATED LIST OF CONTENTS : Vol. I.: INTRO
DUCTORY DIVISION : I. Prolegomena to the Study of the History
of Dogma. II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma.
DIVISION I. The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the
Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic Dogmatic Theology, and the
first Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine. BOOK I. :
The Preparation. Vol. II. : DIVISION I. BOOK II. :The
Laying of the Foundation. I. Historical Survey. /. Fixing and
gradual Secularising of Christianity as a Church. //. Fixing and
gradual Hellenising of Christianity as a System of Doctrine. Vol.
III. : DIVISION I. BOOK II. : The Laying of the Fotmdation
continued. DIVISION II. The Development of Ecclesiastical
Dogma. BOOK I. : The History of the Development of Dogma as
the Doctrine of the God-man on the basis of Natural Theology.

A. Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redemption or Natiiral Theology.

B. The Doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man in
its historical development. Vol. IV.: DIVISION II. BOOK I. :
The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the
God-man on the basis of Natural Theology continued. Vol. V. :
DIVISION II. BOOK II. : Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma
into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and Means of Grace on the basis of
the Church. Vol. VI. : DIVISION II. BOOK II. -. Expansion
and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 5

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY-Continued.

Means of Grace on the basis of the Church continued. Vol. VII. :
DIVISION II. BOOK III. -. The Threefold Issue of the History of
Dogma. Full Index.

"No work on Church history in recent times has had the influence of Prof.
Harnack s History of Dogma." Times.

" A book which is admitted to be one of the most important theological works
of the time." Daily News.

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? Sixteen Lectures delivered in
the University of Berlin during the Winter Term, 1899-1900. By
Adolf Harnack. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. (New
Series, Vol. XIV.) Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. ; can only be
supplied when complete set of the New Series is ordered.

Prof. W. Sanday of Oxford, in the examination of the work, says : "I may
assume that Harnack s book, which has attracted a good deal of attention in this
country as in Germany, is by this time well known, and that its merits are
recognised its fresh and vivid descriptions, its breadth of view and skilful
selection of points, its frankness, its genuine enthusiasm, its persistent effort to
get at the living realities of religion."

"Seldom has a treatise of the sort been at once so suggestive and so
stimulating. Seldom have the results of so much teaming been brought to bear
on the religious problems which address themselves to the modern mind."
Pilot.

" In many respects this is the most notable work of Prof. Harnack. . . .
These lectures are most remarkable, both for the historical insight they display
and for their elevation of tone and purpose." Literature.

THE COMMUNION OF THE CHRISTIAN WITH GOD :
A Discussion in Agreement with the View of Luther. By
W. Herrmann, Dr. Theol., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the
University of Marburg. Translated from the Second thoroughly
revised Edition, with Special Annotations by the Author, by J.
Sandys Stanyon, M.A. (New Series, Vol. IV.) 8vo, cloth.
IOJ. 6ii.

" It will be seen from what has been said that this book is a very important
one. . . . The translation is also exceedingly well done." Critical Review.

"We trust the book will be widely read, and should advise those who read it
to do so twice." Primitive Methodist Quarterly.

" Instinct with genuine religious feeling ; . . . exceedingly interesting and
suggestive." Glasgow Herald.

A HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS. By R. Kittel, Ordinary
Professor of Theology in the University of Breslau. In 2 vols.
(New Series, Vols. III. and VI.) 8vo, cloth. Each volume,
IOJ. 6d.

Vol. I. Sources of Information and History of the Period
up to the Death of Joshua. Translated by John Taylor,
D.Lit., M.A.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY-Continued

Vol. II. Sources of Information and History of the
Period down to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by Hope
W. Hogg, B.D., and E. B. Speirs, D.D.

" It is a sober and earnest reconstruction, for which every earnest student of
the Old Testament should be grateful." Christian World.

" It will be a happy day for pulpit and pew when a well-thumbed copy of
the History of the Hebrews is to be found in every manse and parsonage."
Literary World.

" It is a work which cannot fail to attract the attention of thoughtful people
in this country." Pall Mall Gazette.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. By Professor
Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn. Translated from the Second
Edition, with Corrections and Additions by the Author, by William
Edie, B.D., and edited, with a Preface, by Allan Menzies, D.D. ,
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University of St.
Andrews. (New Series, Vol. XIII.) With eleven reproductions
of Texts. Demy 8vo, icxr. 6d. ; half-leather, izs. 6d.

"We have no living scholar more capable of accomplishing the fascinating
task of preparing a complete introduction on the new and acknowledged prin
ciples than Prof. Nestle. This book will stand the most rigorous scrutiny ; it
will surpass the highest expectation." Expository Times.

"Nothing could be better than Dr. Nestle s account of the materials which
New Testament textual criticism has to deal with." Spectator.

"We know of no book of its size which can be recommended more cordially
to the student, alike for general interest and for the clearness of its arrangement.
. . . In smoothness of rendering, the translation is one of the best we have
come across for a considerable time." Manchester Guardian.

THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By Prof. Carl von Weizsacker. Trans
lated by James Millar, B.D. 2 vols. (New Series, Vols. I. and
V.) Demy 8vo, cloth. Each icxr. 6d.

" Weizsacker is an authority of the very first rank. The present work marks
an epoch in New Testament criticism. The English reader is fortunate in
having a masterpiece of this kind rendered accessible to him." Expository
Times.

" . . . No student of theology or of the early history of Christianity can
afford to leave Weizsacker s great book unread." Manchester Guardian.

"In every direction in this work we find the mark of the independent
thinker and investigator . . . this remarkable volume . . . this able and
learned work. . . ." Christian World.

" The book itself . . . is of great interest, and the work of the translation
has been done in a most satisfactory way." Critical Review,

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 7

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY.

ID Series.

Uniform Price per Volume, 6s.

BAUR (F. C.). CHURCH HISTORY OF THE FIRST
THREE CENTURIES. Translated from the Third German
Edition. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. I2.r.

PAUL, THE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST, HIS

LIFE AND WORK, HIS EPISTLES AND DOC
TRINE. A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive
Christianity. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2nd Edition.
2 vols. 8vo, cloth. I2J.

BLEEK (F.). LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE.

Translated. Edited by the Rev. Dr. S. Davidson. 8vo, cloth.
6s.

EWALD S (Dr. H.) COMMENTARY ON THE PRO
PHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Translated by
the Rev. J. F. Smith. [Vol. I. General Introduction, Yoel, Amos,
Hosea, and Zakharya 9-11. Vol. II. Yesaya, Obadya, and Mikah.
Vol. III. Nahfim, Ssephanya, Habaqquq, Zakharya, Yeremya.
Vol. IV. Hezekiel, Yesaya xl.-lxvi. Vol. V. Haggai, Zakharya,
Malaki, Jona, Baruc, Daniel, Appendix and Index.] 5 vols. 8vo,
cloth. 30*.

COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS. Translated by

the Rev. E. Johnson, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 125.

- COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB, with
Translation. Translated from the German by the Rev. J.
Frederick Smith. 8vo, cloth. 6^.

HAUSRATH (Prof. A.). HISTORY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT TIMES. The Time of Jesus. Translated
by the Revs. C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth.

I2S.

The second portion of this work, "The Times of the Apostles,
was issued apart from the Library, but in uniform volumes ; see
p. 1 8.

KEIM S HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARA : Considered
in its connection -with the National Life of Israel, and
related in detail. Translated from the German by Arthur Ransom
and the Rev. E. M. Geldart. [Vol. I. Second Edition. Intro
duction, Survey of Sources, Sacred and Political Groundwork.
Religious Groundwork. Vol. II. The Sacred Youth, Self-recog
nition, Decision. Vol. III. The First Preaching, the Works of

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY-Continued.

Jesus, the Disciples, and Apostolic Mission. Vol. IV. Conflicts
and Disillusions, Strengthened Self-confidence, Last Efforts in
Galilee, Signs of the Approaching Fall, Recognition of the Messiah.
Vol. V. The Messianic Progress to Jerusalem, the Entry into
Jerusalem, the Decisive Struggle, the Farewell, the Last Supper.
Vol. VI. The Messianic Death at Jerusalem. Arrest and Pseudo-
Trial, the Death on the Cross, Burial and Resurrection, the
Messiah s Place in History, Indices.] Complete in 6 vols.
8vo. 36^.

(Vol. I. only to be had when a complete set of the work is
ordered.)

KUENEN (Dr. A.). THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO
THE FALL OF THE JEWISH STATE. By Dr. A.

Kuenen, Professor of Theology at the University, Leiden. Trans
lated from the Dutch by A. H. May. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth, i&s.

PFLEIDERER (O.). PAULIN1SM : A Contribution to the
History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated by E.
Peters. 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ON THE BASIS OF

ITS HISTORY. (Vols. I. II. History of the Philosophy of
Religion from Spinoza to the Present Day ; Vols. III. IV. Genetic-
Speculative Philosophy of Religion.) Translated by Prof, Allan
Menzies and the Rev. Alex. Stewart. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 245.

REVILLE (Dr. A.). PROLEGOMENA OF THE HIS
TORY OF RELIGIONS. With an Introduction by Prof.
F. Max Miiller. 8vo, cloth. 6s.

PROTESTANT COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TES
TAMENT. With General and Special Introductions. Edited
by Profs. P. W. Schmidt and F. von Holzendorff. Translated
from the Third German Edition by the Rev. F. H. Jones, B.A.
3 vols. 8vo, cloth. iSs.

SCHRADER (Prof. E.). THE CUNEIFORM INSCRIP
TIONS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. Translated
from the Second Enlarged Edition, with Additions by the Author,
and an Introduction by the Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A.
2 vols. (Vol. I. not sold separately.) With a Map. 8vo, cloth.

I2S.

ZELLER (Dr. E.). THE CONTENTS AND ORIGIN OF
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES CRITICALLY
INVESTIGATED. Preceded by Dr. Fr. Overbeck s Intro
duction to the Acts of the Apostles from De Wette s Handbook.
Translated by Joseph Dare. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

THE CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

The volumes are uniform in size (crown octavo] and binding, but the
price varies according to the size and importance of the work.

A Few Opinions of the Series.

Professor Marcus Dods : "By introducing to the English-speaking public
specimens of the work of such outstanding critics and theologians, your
Crown Theological Library has done a valuable service to theological
learning in this country."

Dr. John Watson : " The Library is rendering valuable service to lay theologians
in this country, as well as to ministers."

Rev. Principal P. T. Forsyth : " As a whole it is an admirable series, and
opens to the English reader at a low price some books which are of prime
importance for religious thought."

Rev. Principal D. L. Ritchie: "I have read many of the volumes in the
Crown Library, and I think it an admirable and useful series."

Sir Edward Russell : " I have formed the highest opinion of this series. Each
of the books is animated by a fine intelligent and at the same time devout
spirit."

Rev. Professor A. E. Garvie : " I am very grateful for the publication of these
volumes, as they bring within the reach of the English student, in a correct
translation and at cheap price, important theological works, which other
wise would be accessible only to those familiar with French or German."

Rev. R. J. Campbell : " Your Crown Theological Library" is invaluable, and
is doing excellent service for liberal Christianity."

Professor G. Currie Martin : " I think you are rendering a most valuable service
to all serious students of theology by your publication of the Crown
Theological Library. "

Vol. I. BABEL AND BIBLE. By Dr. Friedrich Delitzsch, Pro
fessor of Assyriology in the University of Berlin. Authorised
Translation. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. C. H. W.
Johns. Crown 8vo, with 77 illustrations, cloth. 5^-

Vol. II. THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST: An Historical
and Critical Essay. By Paul Lobstein, Professor of Dogmatics
in the University of Strassburg. Translated by Victor Leuliette,
A.K.C., B.-es-L., Paris. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev.
W. D. Morrison, LL. D. Crown 8 vo. y.

Vol. III. MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT: Confessions of a
Preacher. By R. Wimmer, Pastor of Weisweil-am-Rhein in
Baden. Crown 8vo, cloth. $s. 6d.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THE CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY-Continued.

Vol. IV. LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY: Its Origin, Nature, and
Mission. By Jean Reville, Professeur adjoint a la Faculte de
Theologie Protestante de 1 Universite de Paris. Translated and
edited by Victor Leuliette, A.K.C. , B.-es-L. Crown 8vo,
cloth. 45.

Vol. V. WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? By Adolf Harnack,
Professor of Church History in the University, Berlin. Translated
by Thomas Bailey Saunders. Crown 8vo. $s.

Vol. VI. FAITH AND MORALS. By W. Herrmann, Professor of
Systematic Theology at the University of Marburg; Author of "The
Communion of the Christian with God." Crown 8vo, cloth. 51.

Vol. VII. EARLY HEBREW STORY. A Study of the Origin,

the Value, and the Historical Background of the Legends of Israel.
By John P. Peters, D.D., Rector of St. Michael s Church, New
York ; author of " Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the
Euphrates." Crown 8vo, cloth. 55.

Vol. VIII. BIBLE PROBLEMS AND THE NEW
MATERIAL FOR THEIR SOLUTION. A Plea for
Thoroughness of Investigation, addressed to Churchmen
and Scholars. By the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.Litt., D.D.,
Fellow of the British Academy ; Oriel Professor of Interpretation
in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. Crown
8vo. 5.J.

Vol. IX. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT AND
ITS HISTORICAL EVOLUTION; and RELIGION
AND MODERN CULTURE. By the late Auguste Sabatier,
Professor in the University of Paris. Translated by Victor Leuliette,
A. K. C. , B.-es-L. Crown 8vo. 4$. 6d.

Vol. X. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF
CHRIST: Its Value and Significance in the History of
Religion. By Otto Pfleiderer, D.D. , Professor of Practical
Theology in the University, Berlin. Crown 8vo. 31. 6d.

Vol. XL THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Eleven Essays. By
Prof. Henry Jones, M.A., LL.D. , University of Glasgow ; C. F. G.
Masterman, M.A. ; Prof. George T. Ladd, D.D., LL.D., Uni
versity of Yale; Rev. F. R. Tennant, M.A. , B.Sc., Hulsean
Lecturer ; Rev. J. Cynddylan Jones, D.D. ; Rev. Canon Hensley
Henson, M.A. ; Rev. Robert F. Horton, M.A., D.D. ; Rev. G.
Hill, M.A., D.D. ; Rev. J. J. Thornton; Rev. Rabbi A. A.
Green ; Prof. Joseph Agar Beet, D. D. Edited by Thomas
Stephens, B.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.

" No fresher and more instructive book on this question has been issued for
years, and the study of its pages will often prove a godsend to many perplexed
minds in the church and in the Christian home." British Weekly.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

THE CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY-Continued.

Vol. XII. THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION : An Anthro
pological Study. By L. R. Farnell, D.Litt., Fellow and Tutor
of Exeter College, Oxford ; University Lecturer in Classical
Archaeology, etc., etc. Crown 8vo, cloth. $s.

Vol. XIII. THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By H. von Soden, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University
of Berlin. Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, and edited by
Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5.?.

Vol. XIV. JESUS. By Wilhelm Bousset, Professor of Theology in
Gottingen. Translated by Janet Penrose Trevelyan, and edited by
Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 4^.

" It is true the writers, von Soden and Bousset, have in the course of their
papers said things that I regard as as nothing less than admirable. I very
much doubt whether we have anything so admirable in English." Rev. Dr.
Sanday in the Guardian.

Vol. XV. THE COMMUNION OF THE CHRISTIAN

WITH GOD. By Prof. Wilhelm Herrmann. Translated from

the new German Edition by Rev. J. S. Stanyon, M.A., and Rev.

R. W. Stewart, B.D., B.Sc. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*.

Vol. XVI. HEBREW RELIGION TO THE ESTABLISH
MENT OF JUDAISM UNDER EZRA. By W. E. Addis
M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^.

Vol. XVII. NATURALISM AND RELIGION. By Rudolf

Otto, Professor of Theology in the University of Gottingen. Trans
lated by J. Arthur Thomson, Professor of Natural History in the
University of Aberdeen, and Margaret R. Thomson. Edited with
an Introduction by Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 6s.

"... A valuable survey, and a critical estimate of scientific theory and
kindred ideas as they concern the religious view of the world. . . . It is well
written, clear, and even eloquent." Expository Times.

Vol. XVIII. ESSAYS ON THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. By Pro
fessor Adolf Harnack, of Berlin, and Professor W. Herrmann, of
Marburg. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4^. 6d.

Vol. XIX. THE RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Its Place among the Religions of the Nearer East. By
Karl Marti, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Bern. Crown
8vo, cloth. 45. 6d.

In a leading review The Spectator says: "It is a valuable contribution
to a great theme by one who has devoted his life to its study. Not only the
general reader, for whom it is specially intended, but the theologian will learn
not a little from its pages."

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THE CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY Continued.

Vol. XX. LUKE, THE PHYSICIAN. By Adolf Harnack, D.D.
Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, M.A. Crown 8vo,
cloth. 6s.

"What is new and interesting and valuable is the ratiocination, the theorising,
and the personal point of view in the book under review. We study it to under
stand Professor Harnack, not to understand Luke ; and the study is well worth
the time and work. Personally, I feel specially interested in the question of
Luke s nationality. On this the author has some admirable and suggestive
pages." Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor.

Vol. XXI. THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. By Kirsopp
Lake, Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of
Leiden, Holland. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^.

Vol. XXII. THE APOLOGETIC OF THE NEW TESTA
MENT. By E. F. Scott, M.A., author of " The Fourth Gospel :
Its Purpose and Theology." Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^.

Vol. XXIII. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. By Adolf Harnack,
D.D. Being Vol. II. of Dr Harnack s New Testament Studies.
Crown 8vo, cloth. 65.

Vol. XXIV. ANGLICAN LIBERALISM. By Twelve Church
men. Rev. Hubert Handley, Prof. F. C. Burkitt, M.A., D.D.,
Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, M.A., Rev. C. R. Shaw Stewart, M.A.,
Rev. Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt., D.C.L., Prof. Percy Gardner,
Litt.D., LL.D., Sir C. T. Dyke Acland, Rev. A. J. Carlyle, M.A.,
Rev. H. G. Woods, D.D., Rev. A. Caldecott, D.Litt., D.D., Rev.
W. D. Morrison, LL.D., Rev. A. L. Lilley, M.A. Crown 8vo,
cloth. 53.

"This is a stimulating volume, and we are glad to see an able body of
writers uniting to claim the free atmosphere as the condition of spiritual
progress. " Westminster Gazette.

Vol. XXV. THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGIpN. By R. Seeberg, Professor of
Systematic Theology in Berlin. Sixteen Lectures delivered before
the Students of all Faculties in the University of Berlin. Crown
8vo, 350 pp. 5*.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By Adolf Harnack, D.D.
Being Vol. III. of Dr Harnack s New Testament Studies. Crown
8vo, cloth. 6s.

In the Press. Almost Ready.

THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT. By Rudolf Eucken, Professor

of Philosophy in Jena.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 13

THE HIBBERT LECTURES.

Library Edition, demy 8vo, los. 6d. per volume. Cheap Popular
Edition, $s. 6d, per volume.

ALVIELLA (Count GOBLET D F ). EVOLUTION OF THE
IDEA OF GOD, ACCORDING TO ANTHROPOLOGY
AND HISTORY. Translated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed.
(Hibbert Lectures, 1891.) Cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3*. 6d.

BEARD (Rev. Dr. C.). LECTURES ON THE REFORMA
TION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY IN ITS
RELATION TO MODERN THOUGHT AND KNOW
LEDGE. (Hibbert Lectures, 1883.) 8vo, cloth. los. 6d.
Cheap Edition, 3rd Edition, 3^. 6d.

DAVIDS (T. W. RHYS). LECTURES ON SOME POINTS
IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDHISM. (Hib.
Lee., 1881.) 2nd Ed. 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. Cheap Ed., 31. 6d.

DRUMMOND (Dr.) VIA, VERITAS, VITA. Lectures on
Christianity in its most Simple and Intelligible Form. (The
Hibbert Lectures, 1894.) los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3^. 6d.

HATCH (Rev. Dr.). LECTURES ON THE INFLUENCE
OF GREEK IDEAS AND USAGES UPON THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Edited by Dr. Fairbairn. (Hibbert
Lectures, 1888.) 3rd Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap
Edition, 3^. 6d.

KUENEN (Dr. A.). LECTURES ON NATIONAL
RELIGIONS AND UNIVERSAL RELIGION. (The
Hibbert Lectures, 1882.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition,
3*. 6d.

MONTEFIORE (C. G.). ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF
RELIGION AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE RELIGION
OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. (The Hibbert Lectures,
1892.) 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 31. 6d.

PFLEIDERER (Dr. O.). LECTURES ON THE IN
FLUENCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY. Translated by
the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. (Hibbert Lectures, 1885.) 2nd
Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. &/. Cheap Edition, y. 6d.

RENAN (E.). ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE INSTITU
TIONS, THOUGHT, AND CULTURE OF ROME
ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Translated by the Rev.
Charles Beard. (Hibbert Lectures, 1880.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d.
Cheap Edition, 3rd Edition, 31. 6d.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

i 4 WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

THE HIBBERT LECTURES Continued.

RENOUF (P. LE PAGE). ON THE RELIGION OF
ANCIENT EGYPT. (Hibbert Lectures, 1879.) 3rd Edition.
8vo, cloth. IDS. 6d. Cheap Edition, T,S. 6d.

RHYS (Prof. J.). ON THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH
OF RELIGION AS ILLUSTRATED BY CELTIC
HEATHENDOM. (Hibbert Lectures, 1886.) 8vo, cloth.
los. 6d. Cheap Edition, y. 6d.

REVILLE (Dr. A.). ON THE NATIVE RELIGIONS OF
MEXICO AND PERU. Translated by the Rev. P. H.
Wicksteed. (Hibbert Lectures, 1884.) 8vo, cloth. los. 6d.
Cheap Edition, 35. 6d.

SAYCE (Prof. A. H.). ON THE RELIGION OF
ANCIENT ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA. 4th Edition.
(Hibbert Lectures, 1887.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Ed., 3.?. 6d.

UPTON (Rev. C. B.). ON THE BASES OF RE-
LIGIOUS BELIEF. (Hibbert Lectures, 1893.) Demy 8vo,
cloth. IOJ-. 6d. Cheap Edition, y. f&gt;d.

ALPHABETICAL LIST.

ADDIS (W. E.). HEBREW RELIGION. 5*. See Crown
Theological Library, p. II.

ALLIN (Rev. THOS.). UNIVERSALISM ASSERTED
AS THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL ON THE
AUTHORITY OF REASON, THE FATHERS, AND
HOLY SCRIPTURE. With a Preface by Edna Lyall, and a
Letter from Canon Wilberforce. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.

ALVIELLA (Count GOBLET D ). THE CONTEMPOR
ARY EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN
ENGLAND, AMERICA, AND INDIA. Translated from
the French by the Rev. J. Moden. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d.

EVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF GOD. See The

Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

ANGLICAN LIBERALISM. By Twelve Churchmen. $s. See
Crown Theological Library, p. 12.

ANNOTATED CATECHISM. A Manual of Natural Religion
and Morality, with many practical details. 2nd Edition. Crown
8vo, cloth, is.

BAUR (F. C.). CHURCH HISTORY OF THE FIRST
THREE CENTURIES. 2 vols., 12s. See Theological
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

PAUL, THE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST.

2 vols., 1 2s. See Theological Translation Library. Old Series, p. 7.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 15

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

BEARD (Rev. Dr. C.). THE UNIVERSAL CHRIST,
AND OTHER SERMONS. Crown 8vo, cloth. 75. 6d.

LECTURES ON THE REFORMATION OF THE

SIXTEENTH CENTURY IN ITS RELATION TO
MODERN THOUGHT AND KNOWLEDGE. See The

Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

BEEBY (Rev. C. E., B.D., Author of "Creed and Life").
DOCTRINE AND PRINCIPLES. Popular Lectures on
Primary Questions. Demy 8vo, cloth. qs. (&gt;d.

BIBLE. Translated by Samuel Sharpe, being a Revision of the
Authorised English Version. 6th Edition of the Old, loth Edition
of the New Testament. 8vo, roan. $s. See also Testament.

BLEEK(R). LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE. See

Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

BREMOND (HENRI). THE MYSTERY OF NEWMAN.

With an Introduction by Rev. George Tyrrell, M.A. Medium 8vo,
cloth. los. 6d. ttet.

" From France comes a remarkable volume, excellently translated, which
endeavours to probe the mystery ; to realise, as it were, the soul of Newman,
to describe to us justly and truthfully the personality of the man." Daily
Chronicle.

" No subsequent work can deprive M. Bremond s book of its great psycho
logical interest ; it is a work that, unlike many books on Newman and the
Tractarians, no student of modem Christianity can afford to miss." Pall Mai.
Gazette.

BROADBENT (The late Rev. T. P., B.A.). THIRTEEN
SERMONS, AN ESSAY, AND A FRAGMENT. With
a Prefatory Note by Rev. Prof. J. Estlin Carpenter, M.A. Crown
8vo, cloth. 41. net.

CAMPBELL (Rev. Canon COLIN). FIRST THREE
GOSPELS IN GREEK. 3*. 6d net. See Testament, New,
p. 26.

CHANNING S COMPLETE WORKS. Including "The
Perfect Life," with a Memoir. Centennial Edition. 410 Edition.
Cloth. 7J. 6d.

CHEYNE (Prof. T. K.). BIBLE PROBLEMS AND THE
NEW MATERIAL FOR THEIR SOLUTION. 55.
See Crown Theological Library, p. IO.

CHILD AND RELIGION. Edited by Thomas Stephens, B.A.
6s. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10.

CHRISTIAN CREED (OUR). 2nd and greatly Revised Edition.
Crown 8vo, cloth. 31. 6d.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

id WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

COIT (STANTON, Ph.D.). NATIONAL IDEALISM AND
A STATE CHURCH.

" No one reading this book could miss its interest and ability. . . . Criticises
existing Christianity along lines almost literally opposite to those of Herbert
Spencer and the majority of the critics. . . . Great clearness and eloquence. "
G. K. CHESTERTON in The Nation.

NATIONAL IDEALISM AND THE BOOK OF

COMMON PRAYER. An Essay in Re-Interpretation and
Revision. Demy 8vo, cloth. JO.T. 6d. net.

COMMON PRAYER FOR CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: in
Ten Services for Morning and Evening. 32010, cloth, i s. 6d.
Also in 8vo, cloth. 35.

CONWAY (MONCURE D.). CENTENARY HISTORY
OF THE SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY.

With numerous Portraits, a facsimile of the original MS. of the
hymn, "Nearer, my God, to Thee," and Appendices. Crown
8vo, half vellum, paper sides. $s.

CORNILL (Prof. CARL). INTRODUCTION TO THE
CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d, net. See Theological Translation
Library, New Series, p. 2.

DAVIDS (T. W. RHYS). LECTURES ON SOME
POINTS IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDH
ISM. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

DELITZSCH (F.). BABEL AND BIBLE. Two Lectures

delivered before the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in the presence
of the German Emperor. $s. See Crown Theological Library,
p. 9. See also Harnack, A., "Letter to Preuss. fahrbiicher," p. 18.

DOBSCHUTZ (E. VON). CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE
PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Demy 8vo. IQS. 6d. 5 Theo
logical Translation Library, New Series, p. 3.

DRIVER (S. R.). See Mosheh ben Shesheth, p. 22.

DRUMMOND (JAMES, M.A., LL.D., Hon. LittD., late
Principal of Manchester College, Oxford). AN INQUIRY
INTO THE CHARACTER AND AUTHORSHIP OF
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d.

" The book is not only learned, but also reverent and spiritual in tone, and
ought to find its way into the libraries of students of all shades of belief, as a
very notable attempt to solve one of the most important of New Testament
problems." Christian World.

VIA, VERITAS, VITA. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

PHILO JUD^EUS. Seep. 28.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 17

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

ECHOES OF HOLY THOUGHTS : Arranged as Private
Meditations before a First Communion. 2nd Edition, with a
Preface by Rev. J. Hamilton Thorn. Printed with red lines.
Fcap. 8vo, cloth, is.

EUCKEN (Prof. RUDOLF). THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT.

See page 12.

EWALD (H.). COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHETS
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. See Theological Transla
tion Library, Old Series, p. 7.

- COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS. See Theological
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

EWALD (H.). COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF
JOB. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

FARNELL (L. R.). THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGION.
An Anthropological Study. By L. R. Farnell, D.Litt, Fellow
and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. 5^. See Crown Theo
logical Library, p. II.

FIGG (E. G.). ANALYSIS OF THEOLOGY, NATURAL

AND REVEALED. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.

FORMBY (Rev. C. W.). RE-CREATION: A New Aspect
of Evolution. Large Crown 8vo, cloth. $s.

FOUR GOSPELS (THE) AS HISTORICAL RECORDS.

8vo, cloth. 15^.

GILL (C.). THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

By Charles Gill. 2nd Edition. With Dissertations in answer to
Criticism. 8vo, cloth. 12$.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH THE PROPHET. Trans
lated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library, by the late
Richard Laurence, LL. D., Archbishop of Cashel. The Text
corrected from his latest Notes by Charles Gill. Re-issue, 8vo,
cloth. 5*.

HARNACK (ADOLF). ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 6^.

See Crown Theological Library, p. 12.

MONASTICISM : Its Ideals and History ; and THE

CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Two Lectures
by Adolf Harnack. Translated into English by E. E. Kellett,
M.A., and F. H. Marseille, Ph.D., M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth. 45.

" The lectures impart to these old subjects a new and vivid interest which
cannot but win this faithful version many admiring readers." Scotsman.

" One might read all the ponderous volumes of Montalembert without
obtaining so clear a view or so rare a judgment of this immense subject as are
offered in these luminous pages. . . . The translation is excellent, and gives us
Harnack in pure and vigorous English." Christian World.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.
2

18 WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

ALPHABETICAL LIST-Continued.

HARNACK (ADOLF). LETTER to the " Preussische Jahr-
biicher " on the German Emperor s Criticism of Prof.
Delitzsch s Lectures on " Babel and Bible." Translated into
English by Thomas Bailey Saunders. 6d. net.

-LUKE, THE PHYSICIAN. 6s. See Crown Theological
Library, p. 12.

- HISTORY OF DOGMA. 7 vols., los. 6d. each. See Theo
logical Translation Library, New Series, p. 4.

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. 6s. See Crown Theological

Library, p. 12.

- WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 55. See Theological Trans
lation Library, New Series, p. 5. Also Crown Theological Library,
p. II. See Saunders (T. B.), " Professor Harnack and his Oxford
Critics," p. 24.

MISSION AND EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY

IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. By Adolf
Harnack, D. D., Berlin. Entirely new edition, re-written, with
numerous additions and maps. 2 vols. demy 8vo, cloth. 2$s. net.

and HERRMANN (Dr. WILHELM). ESSAYS ON

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. 45. 6d. Translation edited by
Maurice A. Canney, M.A. See Crown Theological Library, p. n

HATCH (Rev. Dr.). LECTURES ON THE INFLUENCE
OF GREEK IDEAS AND USAGES UPON THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

HAUSRATH (Prof. A.). HISTORY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT TIMES. The Time of the Apostles. Trans
lated by Leonard Huxley. With a Preface by Mrs Humphry
Ward. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 425-. (Uniform with the Theological
Translation Library, Old Series.)

NEW TESTAMENT TIMES. The Times of Jesus.

2 vols. \2s. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

HEBREW TEXTS, in large type for Classes :

Genesis. 2nd Edition. i6mo, cloth, is. 6d.
Psalms. 161110, cloth, is.
Isaiah. i6mo, cloth, is.
Job. i6mo, cloth, is.

HENSLOW(Rev. G.). THE ARGUMENT OF ADAPTA
TION ; or, Natural Theology reconsidered. 8vo, cloth, is.

- SPIRITUAL TEACHINGS OF BIBLE PLANTS ;
or, The Garden of God. 8vo, cloth, is.

- THE AT-ONE-MENT ; or, The Gospel of Reconciliation.

8vo, cloth, is.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 19

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

HENSLOW (Rev. G.). THE SPIRITUAL TEACHING
OF CHRIST S LIFE. 8vo, cloth. 55. net.

- CHRIST NO PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION. 8vo,
cloth, is.

- VULGATE, THE : The Source of False Doctrines.

A work specially applicable to the Clergy, Bible Teachers, and
other exponents of the Gospel of Christ. Crown 8vo, cloth.
2s. 6d. net.

HERFORD (R. TRAVERS, B.A.). CHRISTIANITY IN
TALMUD AND MIDRASH. Demy Svo, cloth. iSs. net.

CONTENTS : Introduction. Division I. Passages from the
Rabbinical Literature : A. Passages relating to Jesus. B. Passages
relating to Minim, Minuth. Division II. General Results. Appen
dix containing the Original Texts of the Passages translated.
Indices.

HERRMANN (W.). THE COMMUNION OF THE
CHRISTIAN WITH GOD. 5*. See Theological Translation
Library, New Series, p. 5.

- FAITH AND MORALS. $ s - See Crown Theological
Library, p. 10.

and HARNACK (ADOLF.). ESSAYS ON THE

SOCIAL GOSPEL. 4?. 6&lt;f. See Crown Theological Library,
p. ii.

HIBBERT JOURNAL: A Quarterly Review of Religion,
Theology, and Philosophy. Edited by L. P. Jacks and G.
Dawes Hicks. Vol. I. Royal 8vo, 856 pp. Vol. II., 864 pp.
Vol. III., 869 pp. Vols. IV., V., and VI., 960 pp. Cloth.
Each I2s. 6d. net. Annual Subscription, IDS. post free.

HOERNING (Dr. R.). THE KARAITE MSS., BRITISH
MUSEUM. The Karaite Exodus (i. to viii. 5) in Forty-two
Autotype Facsimiles, with a Transcription in ordinary Arabic type.
Together with Descriptions and Collation of that and five other
MSS. of portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic characters in the
same Collection. Royal 4to, cloth, gilt top. 2os.

HUNTER (Rev. J., D.D.). DE PROFUNDIS CLAMAVI,
and Other Sermons. Large Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. net.

THE COMING CHURCH. A Plea for a Church simply

Christian. Cloth, is. 6d, net

JOHNSON (EDWIN, M.A.). THE RISE OF CHRISTEN
DOM. Demy Svo, cloth. Js. bd.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

20 WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

JOHNSON (EDWIN, M.A.). ANTIQUA MATER : A Study
of Christian Origins. Crown 8vo, cloth, zs. 6d.

- THE RISE OF ENGLISH CULTURE. Demy 8vo,
cloth. 1 5.5-. net.

JONES (Rev. R. CROMPTON). HYMNS OF DUTY AND
FAITH. Selected and Arranged. 247 pp. Fcap. 8vo, cloth.
2nd Edition. 35. 6d.

- CHANTS, PSALMS, AND CANTICLES. Selected
and Pointed for Chanting. iSmo, cloth. is. 6d.

ANTHEMS. With Indexes and References to the Music.

i8mo, cloth, is. $d.

THE CHANTS AND ANTHEMS. Together in i vol.,

cloth, zs.

A BOOK OF PRAYER. In Thirty Orders of Worship, with

Additional Prayers and Thanksgivings. i8mo, cloth. 2s. 6d.
With Chants, in I vol. i8mo, cloth. 3^.

KAUTZSCH (E.). AN OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY
OF THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. With Chronological Tables for the History of the
Israelites, and other Aids to the Explanation of the Old Testament.
Reprinted from the "Supplement to the Translation of the Old
Testament." By E. Kautzsch, Professor of Theology at the Uni
versity of Halle. Edited by the Author. Translated by John
Taylor, D.Lit., M.A., etc. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. 6d.

" This English translation . . . is likely to prove very acceptable to all those
students who desire to see for themselves the view taken by the higher critics
of the growth of the Old Testament." The Guardian.

"Dr. Taylor has rendered a great service to the English readers by his
excellent translation of this important work." British Weekly.

KEIM S HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARA. 6 vols.
6s. each. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7.

KENNEDY (Rev. JAS.). BIBLICAL HEBREW. 125.
See p. 34.

KITTEL (R.). HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS. 2 vols.
I or. 6d. each. See Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 5.

KUENEN (Dr. A.). LECTURES ON NATIONAL AND
UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS. See The Hibbert Lectures,
P- 13-

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE FALL OF

THE JEWISH STATE. 3 vols. i8j. See Theological
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 8.

LAKE (Professor KIRSOPP). THE HISTORICAL EVI
DENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
CHRIST. $s. $ ee Crown Theological Library, p. 12.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 21

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued

LEA (HENRY CHARLES, LL.D.j. HISTORY OF SAC
ERDOTAL CELIBACY IN THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH. Third Edition. Thoroughly Revised and Reset.
2 vols. Medium 8vo, cloth. 2 is. net.

LOBSTEIN(P-). THE DOGMA OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH
OF CHRIST. 35. See Crown Theological Library, p. 9.

LODGE (Sir O.). LIFE AND MATTER. A Criticism of
Professor Haeckel s "Riddle of the Universe." Fourth
Impression. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net.

MACAN (R. W.). THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
CHRIST. An Essay in Three Chapters. 8vo, cloth. $s.

MACKAY (R. W.). SKETCH OF THE RISE AND
PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 8vo, cloth. 6^.

MARCHANT (JAMES). THEORIES OF THE RESUR
RECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Crown 8vo, stiff covers,
2s. net ; superior cloth binding, 3.5-.

MARTI (KARL). RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. 4J. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 11.

MARTINEAU (Rev. Dr. JAMES). THE RELATION
BETWEEN ETHICS AND RELIGION. An Address.
8vo, sewed, is.

MODERN MATERIALISM : ITS ATTITUDE TO
WARDS THEOLOGY. A Critique and Defence. 8vo,
sewed. 21. 6d.

MENEGOZ (E.). RELIGION AND THEOLOGY. By E.

Menegoz, Professor of the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Paris.
Stiff boards, is. net.

MERCER (Right Rev. J. EDWARD, D.D.). THE SOUL
OF PROGRESS. Being the Moorhouse Lectures for 1907.
Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.

" To be congratulated on an effective and freshly thought out exposure of
the familiar failure of materialism to account for evolution, humanity or
progress in any intelligible sense." The Christian World,

MITCHELL (Rev. A. F.). HOW TO TEACH THE BIBLE.

2nd Edition, thoroughly revised and reset. Crown Svo, cloth.
2s. 6d.

" The lectures are marked by much insight and moderation. The book is
notable also for its gracious and cultured note, and for the quiet persuasiveness
with which a revolutionary reform is advocated. 1 Sunday School Chronicle.

MONTEFIORE (C. G.). ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF
RELIGION AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE RELIGION
OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. See The Hibbert Lec
tures, p. 13.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

ALPHABETICAL LIST Continued.

MOSHEH BEN SHESHETH S COMMENTARY ON
JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL. Edited from a Bodleian
MS., with a Translation and Notes, by S. R. Driver. 8vo,
sewed. 3^.

MUNSTERBERG (Prof. HUGO). THE AMERICANS.

I2s. 6d. net. See p. 29.

NESTLE (E .). INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL
CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

See Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 6.

OTTO (R.). NATURALISM AND RELIGION. 6^. See

Crown Theological Library, p. n.

PERCIVAL (G. H.). THE INCARNATE PURPOSE.

Essays on the Spiritual Unity of Life. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d.
net.

PERRIN (R. S.). THE EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE.
A Review of Philosophy. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s.

PERSONAL AND FAMILY PRAYERS. 8vo, buckram.
is. net.

PETERS (JOHN P.). EARLY HEBREW STORY. A

Study of the Origin, the Value, and the Historical Background
of the Legends of Israel. 5^. See Crown Theological Library,
p. 10.

PFLEIDERER (Dr. O.). LECTURES ON THE IN
FLUENCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY. See The

Hibbert Lectures, p. 13.

PAULINISM : A Contribution to the History of Primitive

Christianity. 2 vols. izs. See Theological Translation Library,
Old Series, p. 8.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION ON THE BASIS OF

ITS HISTORY. 4 vols. 245. See Theological Translation
Library, Old Series, p. 8.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF

CHRIST: Its Significance and Value in the History of
Religion. y. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10.

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. Vols. I. and II. Demy

8vo, cloth, los. 6d. net each. See Theological Translation Library,
New Series, p. 2.

POOLE (REG. LANE). ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE
HISTORY OF MEDIAEVAL THOUGHT IN THE
DEPARTMENTS OF THEOLOGY AND ECCLESI
ASTICAL POLITICS. 8vo, cloth. 10^. 6d.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 23

ALPHABETICAL LIST- Continued.

PROTESTANT COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TES
TAMENT. 3 vols. i&s. See Theological Translation Library,
Old Series, p. 8.

RENAN (E.). ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE INSTI
TUTIONS, THOUGHT, AND CULTURE OF ROME
ON CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. See Hibbert Lectures,
P- 13-

RENOUF (P. LE PAGE). ON THE RELIGION OF
ANCIENT EGYPT. See Hibbert Lectures, p. 14.

REVILLE (A.). THE SONG OF SONGS, Commonly called
the Song of Solomon, or the Canticle. Translated from the
French. Crown 8vo, cloth, u. dd.

ON NATIVE RELIGIONS OF MEXICO AND PERU.

See Hibbert Lectures, p. 14.

PROLEGOMENA OF THE HISTORY OF RE
LIGIONS. 6s. See Theological Translation Library, Old
Series, p. 8.

REVILLE (JEAN). LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY. 4* See
Crown Theological Library, p. 10.

See also Sabatier s " Religions of Authority and Religion of the

Spirit," p. 3.

RIX (HERBERT). TENT AND TESTAMENT. A Camp
ing Tour in Palestine, with some Notes on Scripture Sites. With
61 Illustrations, Frontispiece, and Maps. Demy Svo, cloth.
Ss. 6d. net.

A DAWNING FAITH. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*.

ROBINSON (ALEX., M.A., B.D.). A STUDY OF
THE SAVIOUR IN THE NEWER LIGHT. 2nd
Edition. Revised and partly re-written. Demy Svo, cloth. $s. net.

OLD AND NEW CERTAINTY OF THE GOSPEL:

A Sketch. Crown Svo, cloth. 2s. 6d.

SABATIER (AUGUSTE). THE RELIGIONS OF AU
THORITY AND THE RELIGION OF THE SPIRIT.

With a Memoir by Professor J. Reville. los. 6d. See Theologi
cal Translation Library, New Series, p. 3.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

24 WILLIAMS & NORGATE S

ALPHABETICAL LIST-Continued.

SABATIER (AUGUSTE). THE DOCTRINE OF THE
ATONEMENT AND ITS HISTORICAL EVOLU
TION ; and RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE.

4s. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10.

SADLER (Rev. Dr.). PRAYERS FOR CHRISTIAN
WORSHIP. Crown 8 vo, cloth. 3*. 6d.

- CLOSET PRAYERS, Original and Compiled. i8mo,
cloth, is. 6d.

SAUNDERS (T. BAILEY). PROFESSOR HARNACK
AND HIS OXFORD CRITICS. Crown Svo, cloth.
U. 6d. net.

" It gives thoughtful and acutely reasoned support to the great historical
student of Christianity who represents Berlin in theology against the pig-
tailed opposition which Oxford has offered to his learning. A spirited piece of
controversial writing, it cannot but prove stimulating to readers interested in
modern divinity, no matter to which side of the debate their private preposses
sions incline them. " Scotsman.

"Mr. Saunders writes with sobriety and with a knowledge of the points
at issue. Readers of Harnack and his Critics will do well to read his
comments." Sheffield Daily Telegraph.

SAVAGE (M. J.). BELIEFS ABOUT THE BIBLE. 8vo,
cloth. TS. 6d.

SAYCE (A. H.). ON THE RELIGION OF ANCIENT
ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA. See Hibbert Lectures,
p. 14.

SCHRADER (E.). CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS AND
THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2 vols. izs. See Theological
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 8.

SCHUBERT (HANS VON). OUTLINES OF CHURCH
HISTORY. See Theological Translation Library, New Series,
P- 3-

SCOTT (Rev. E. F., M.A.). THE APOLOGETIC OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT. 55. See Crown Theological Library,
p. 12.

SCULLARD (Rev. Prof. H. H., M.A., D.D.). EARLY
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IN THE WEST, FROM
CLEMENT TO AMBROSE. Large crown Svo, cloth. 6s.

SEEBERG (R.). THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. By R. Seeberg, Pro
fessor of Systematic Theology in Berlin. 5^. See Crown Theo
logical Library, p. 12.

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 25

ALPHABETICAL LIST-Continued.

SEVERUS (Patriarch of Antioch). THE SIXTH BOOK
OF THE SELECT LETTERS OF SEVERUS,
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, in the Syriac Version of
Athanasius of Nisibis. Edited and translated by E. W. Brooks.
Vol. I. (Text), Part I, and Vol. II. (Translation), Part i. 2 vols.
8vo, cloth. 42s. net. Vol. I. (Text), Part 2, and Vol. II. (Trans
lation), Part 2. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 425-. net. See Text and
Translation Society, p. 37.

SHARPE (SAMUEL). CRITICAL NOTES ON THE
AUTHORISED ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. 2nd Edition. I2mo, cloth, is. 6d.

SMITH (MARTIN R.). WHAT I HAVE TAUGHT MY
CHILDREN. 2nd Edition, Revised. Crown 8vo, cloth.
3*. 6rf.

SODEN (H. von, D.D.). THE BOOKS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT. $s. See Crown Theological Library, p. n.

STEPHEN (Rev. Canon REGINALD, M.A.). DEMOC
RACY AND CHARACTER. Being the Moorhouse Lectures
for 1908. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*.

THE STATUTES OF THE APOSTLES. The hitherto
unedited Ethiopic and Arabic Texts. Edited, with an Introduc
tion and Translations of the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Coptic Texts,
by Rev. G. Homer, M.A. With an Appendix a recently dis
covered variant of the Coptic Text. iSs. net.

TAYLER (Rev. JOHN JAMES). AN ATTEMPT TO
ASCERTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH
GOSPEL, especially in its Relation to the First Three.

2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 5.?.

TAYLOR (Rev. C.). THE DIRGE OF COHELETH IN
ECCLES. XII. DISCUSSED AND LITERALLY
INTERPRETED. 8vo, cloth, y.

TAYLOR (Rev. Dr. J.). THE MASSORETIC TEXT AND
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE BOOK OF
MICAH. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*.